DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 278 743 UD 025 321

TITLE H.R. 3042, The Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act.Hearings before the Subcommittee on Elementary,Secondary, and Vocational Education of the Committeeon Education and Labor. House of Representatives,Ninety-Ninth Congress, Second Session (Washington,DC, May 20, 1986 and Chicago, IL, June 12, 1986).

INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. HouseCommittee on Education and Labor.

PUB DATE 86NOTE 194p.; Serial No. 99-119.PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Continuation Students; Dropout Characteristics;

*Dropout Prevention; *Educational Policy; *FederalPrograms; Hearings; *High Risk Students;Instructional Improvement; Minority Group Children;*Resource Allocation; School Effectiveness; SecondaryEducation; Urban Schools

IDENTIFIERS Congress 99th

ABSTRACTThis hearing was held to receive testimony related to

H.R. 3042, the Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act, which wouldinitiate a new Federal program of grants to school districts to mountdemonstration programs. The programs would focus on the following:(1) identifying high risk students and preventing them from droppingout; (2) encouraging youth who have already dropped out to reenterschool; and (3) developing model systems to collect information onthe numbers of dropouts and their reasons for leaving school. Thebill authorizes $50 million for fiscal year 1987 and such sums asnecessary for the three succeeding years. Statements and materials by27 witnesses are included. Comments focused on the following points:(1) the alarming numbers of dropouts in urban areas, and amongminority groups and the disadvantaged; (2) the need for a uniformdefinition of "dropout"; (3) consequences of dropping out inunemployment, crime, and welfare assistance; (4) lack of knowledgeabout which programs are effective; (5) the importance ofpublic-private partnerships in dealing with the problem; and (6)dropout characteristics. Witnesses were unanimous in support of thebill. (PS)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

a

H.R. 3042, THE DROPOUT PREVENTION AND

REENTRY ACT

HEARINGSBEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY,AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

OF THE

CGIO NITTTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

HOUSE 3F REPRESENTATIVESNIN; TY-NINTII CONGRESS

:.ECDND SESSION

HEARINGS HELD IN ,v." SHINGTON, DC, ON MAY 20,AND CHICAGO, IL, ON JUNE 23, 1986

Serial No. 99-119

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

6 5., 4)err7

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

U.S. DEPARTMENT DF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

ltihis document has been reproduced aseceived from the person or organization

onginating it.0 Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this oocu-ment do not necessanly represent office!OERI position or policy.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE63-276 0 WASHINGTON : 1986

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales OfficeU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

COMMIITEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California, ChairmanWILLIAM D. FORD, MichiganJOSEPH M. GAYDOS, PennsylvaniaWILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, MissouriMARIO BIAGGI, New YorkAUSTIN J. MURPHY, FennsylvaniaDALE E. KILDEE, MichiganPAT WILLIAMS, MontanaMATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, CaliforniaMAJOR R. OWENS, New YorkRICK BOUCHER, VirginiaCHARLES A. HAYES, IllinoisCARL C. PERKINS, KentuckyTERRY L BRUCE, IllinoisSTEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New YorkMERVYN M. DYMALLY, CaliforniaDENNIS E. ECKART, OhioTIMOTHY J. PENNY, MinnesotaCHESTER G. ATKINS, Massachusetts

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, VermontWILLIAM F. GOODLING, PennsylvaniaE. 'iliOMAS COLEMAN, MissouriTHOMAS E. PETRI, WisconsinMARGE ROUKEMA, New JerseySTEVE GUNDERSON, WisconsinSTEVE EARTLEIT, TexasROD CHANDLER, WashingtonTHOMAS J. TAUKE, IowaJOHN R. McKERNAN, JR., MaineRICHARD 7 4.FEY, TexasHARRIS W. IllinoisPAUL B. HENRI, Michigan

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California, ChairmanWILLIAM D. FORD, MichiganDALE E. KILDEE, MichiganPAT WILLIAMS, MontanaRICK BOUCHER, VirginiaMAJOR R. OWENS, New YorkMATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, CaliforniaCARL C. PERKINS, KentuckySTEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New YorkDENNIS E. ECKART, Ohio

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, PennsylvaniaHARRIS W. FAWELL, IllinoisROD CHANDLER, WashingtonJOHN R. McKERNAN, JR., MaineRICHARD K. ARMEY, TexasSTEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin

(Ex Officio)

CONTENTSHearings held in: Page

Washington, DC, on May 20, 1986 1Chicago, IL, on June 23, 1986 85Statement of:liailey, Dr. Donn, president, Center for Inner City Studies 164Byrd, Dr. Manford, superintendent, Chicago Public Schools 98Dixon, Dan, assistant superintendent, State board of education 104Dunbar, Kathy, student 147Gainer, William J., Associate Director, Human Resources Division, Gen-

eral Accounting Office 14Grayson, Tom, program expert, State board of education, Springfield, IL 104Hayes, Hon. Charles A., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois 3Haywood, Frances, vice president, United Teachers of Los Angeles 30He As, Dr. Fred, executive director, the Chicago Panel on Public School

Finances 155Kyle, Father Charles, St. Xavier Church 141Munoz, George, Board of Education, Chicago Public SchoolsMontoya, Renee Marie, associate director, Design for Change 168Payne, Reginald, director, Community Alliance of Metropolitan Chicago,

CAMC 148Riddick, Reverend, Dr. George, vice-president at large, Operation P.U.S.H. 166Rivera, Roberto, director, Chicago Intervention Network, Chicago Depart-

ment of Human Services 138Sehgal, Ellen, senior evaluator, General Accounting Office 63Steinhagen. Judith, principal, Du Sable High School 131Washington, Hon. Harold, mayor, city of Chicago, IL 94

Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera:American Association For Counseling and Development, prepared state-

ment of 68Bradley, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey, prepared

statement of 66Byrd, Dr. Manford, Jr., prepared statement of 101Citizens Schools Committee, prepared statement of 186Collins, Hon. Cardiss, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois, prepared statement of 172Gainer, William J., Associate Director, Human Resources Division, U.S.

General Accounting Office, prepared statement of 20Grayson, Tom, prepared statemer.t with attachments, on behalf of the

Illinois State Board of Education 107Hawkins, Hon. Augustus F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, opening statement of 2Hayes, Hon. Charles A., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois:Prepared statement of May 20, 1986 5Prepared statement of June 23, 1986 88

Haywood, Fr . - ms, vice president, United Teachers-Los Angeles, preparedstatement cif 34

Hess, Dr. G. Ahred, Chicr go Panel on Public School Finances, preparedstatement of 160

Munoz, George, president, Chicago Board of Education, prepared state-ment on behalf of the Council of the Great City Schools 42'

National fizseciation of Social Workers, prepared statement of 84National Council on the Aging, Inc., prepared statement of 69

(III)

IVPage

Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et ceteraContinuedRote lla, Salvatore G., chancellor, City Colleges of Chicago, prepared state-

ment of 182Steinhagen, Judith, principal, Du Sable High School, prepared statement

of

5

H.R. 3042, THE DROPOUT PREVENTION ANDREENTRY ACT

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1986

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY,

AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION,COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, DC.The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room 2175,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Augustus F. Hawkins (chair-man of the subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Hawkins, Hayes, Martinez,Perkins, Gunderson, and Solarz.

Staff present: John F. Jennings, counsel; Nancy L. Kober, legisla-tive specialist; and Andrew Hartman, Republican senior legislativeassociate.

Chairman HAWKINS. The Subcommittee on Elementary, Second-ary, and Vocational Education is called to order.

This morning, the subcommittee will hear testimony on H.R.3042, the Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act, which is authoredby our distinguished colleague Congressman Hayes.

The hearing itself, I think, speaks for the sponsor's continuinginterest in this subject, and he has certainly pushed for earlyaction on his proposal.

We are very pleased to have a distinguished pane! of witnesses totestify on the issue. We will present them later, after we yield, atthis time, to Congressman Hayes, who may desire to make a state-ment in reference to his bill.

The Chair will ask that the statement of the Chair be inserted inthe record at this point And, without objection, it is so ordered inorder to save time.

[The opening statement of Chairman Hawkins follows:]

(1)

2

May 20, 1986

DROPOUT PREVENTION AND REENTRY ACT: OPENING STATEMENT

This morning the Subcommittee on Elementary,Secondary, and Vocational Education will hear testimonyrelated to H.R. 3042, the Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act.Our colleague Congressman Hayes introduced this legislation,and we commend him for focusing attention on this urgentproblem.

The number of dropouts has reached alarmingproportions in many of our major urban areas. Students whodrop out suffer from many disadvantages in later life: theyare less likely, to be employed; they do not earn as much whenthey are; they are more likely to receive welfare; and theirhealth may be worse. They are more likely to be convicted ofa crime.

H.R. 3042 would initiate a new Federal program ofgrants to school districts to mount demonstration programs.These programs would focus on identifying potential dropoutsand preventing them from dropping out, encouraging youth whohave already dropped out to reenter school, and davelopingmodel systems to collect information on the numbers ofdropouts and their reasons for dropping out. For thesepurposes, the bill authorizes $50 million for fiscal year1987 and such sums as necessary for the three succeedingfiscal years.

This morning we have a distinguished panel ofwitnesses to testify on this issue. But first, we recognizeour colleagve o. the Committee, Congressman Hayes, to make astatement.

3

Chairman HAWKINS. We will yield, at this time, to CmgressmanHayes.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. HAYES, MEMBER OFCONGRESS, ILLINOIS

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I, too, in the interest of tin e and a desire to hear the witnesses

who have come here this mo rning; have a prepared statement,but I'm not going to present it in its entirety.

I'd like to, however, have the entire statement entered in therecord.

Chairman HAWKINS. Without obje-,:tion, so ordered.Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it is

indeed a pleasure for me to join you today as you hear testimonyon H.E 3042, the Dropout Prevention and Reentry ActlegislationI introduced to stem the tragic loss of talent and potential of somany of our young boys and girls.

am by no means an expert on this issue of high school dropouts.But it doesn't take an expert to see the results of a premature de-parture from school.

I am glad to see that you have invited George Munoz, presidentof the Chicago School Board, to testify today. It was a meeting withPresident Munoz and the Chicago School Superintendent ManfordByrd that inspired the drafting of H.R. 3042.

Chicago, as you may know, has a school population of 430,000students, "0 percent of whom are minority students.

President Munoz, I welcome you here today and look forward toreceiving your testimony.

As many of you know, my roots are based in the trade unionmovement. As a member of the labor movement, most of my lifehas been geared toward helping people secure decent employment.

One of the key ir gredients to obthining employment in today'shigh technology society is education. Without a proper education, aperson is all but destined to be on the low end of the totem pole oflife. Their ability to earn a decent wage, their ability to securedecent living quarters, their ability to effectively function in Amer-ican society or to simply enjoy the rewards of American life alldepend on how much education they obtain.

Unfortunately, right now, thousands of our youth are needlesslycarving themselves a niche at the bottom part of the totem pole Imentioned. How? By dropping out of school before they obtaintheir high school diploma.

Estimates of how many students drop out of school vary, in part,because there is no uniform definition of actually who a dropout is.Nevertheless, all the estimates I have seen indicate that the drop-out phmomena is significant and widespread, especially among mi-nority youth.

Our Dational dropout rate is somewhere around 29 percentafigure rekiresenting millions upon millions of children who are fastbecoming a part of what I fear will be the permanent underclass ofAmerican society. As a nation that prides itself on educational ex-cellence, it is a figure that should be unacceptable to all Ameri-cans.

4

Mr. Chairman, I think that this will conclude at least that partof the statement I will present.

I'm awaiting the testimony of the witnesses.[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles A. Hayes follows-1

5

TESTIMONY

OF

REP. CHARLES A. HAYES

ON

H.R 3042

THE DROPOUT PREVENTION AND REENTRY ACT

MAY 20, 1986

6

MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE

SUBCOMMITTEE, IT IS INDEED A PLEASURE FOR ME

TO JOIN YOU TODAY AS YOU HEAR TESTIMONY ON

H.R. 3042, THE DROPOUT PREVENTION AND REENTRY

ACT LEGISLATION I INTRODUCED TO STEM THE

TRAGIC LOSS OF TALENT AND POTENTIAL CF. SO

MANY OF OUR YOUNG BOYS AND GIRLS.

I AM BY NO MEANS AN EXPERT ON THE ISSUE OF

HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS. BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE AN

EXPERT TO SEE THE RESULTS OF A PRIMATURE

DEPARTURE FROM SCHOOL.

I AM GLAD TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE INVITED

GEORGE MUNOZ, PRESIDENT OF THE CHICAGO

SCHOOL BOARD, TO TESTIFY TODAY. IT WAS A

MEETING WITH PRESIDENT MUNOZ AND CHICAGO

SCHOOL SUPERIENTENDENT MANFORD BYRD THAT

INSPIRED THE DRAFTING OF H.R. 3042. CHICAGO, AS

YOU MAY KNOW, HAS A SCHOOL POPULATION OF

430, 000 STUDENTS - - 70 PERCENT OF WHOM ARE

11:

7

PAGE 2

MINORITIY STUDENTS. PRESIDENT MUNOZ, I

WELCOME YOU HERE TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD

TO RECEIVING YOUR TESTIMONY.

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, MY ROOTS ARE BASED

IN THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT. AS. A MEMBER OF

THE LABOR MOVEMENT, MOST OF MY LIFE H.: 3 BEEN

GEARED TOWARD HELPING PEOPLE SECURE DECENT

EMPLOYMENT. ONE OF THE KEY INGREDIENTS TO

OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT IN TODAY'S HIGH TECH

SOCIETY IS EDUCATION. WITHOUT A PROPER

EDUCATION, A PERSON IS ALL BUT DESTINED TO BE

ON THE LOW END OF THE TOTEM POLE OF LIFE.

THEIR ABILITY TO EARN A DECENT WAGE - - THEIR

ABILITY TO SECURE DECENT LIVING QUARTERS

-THEIR ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY FUNCTION IN

AMERICAN SOCIETY OR TO SIMPLY ENJOY THE

REWARDS OF AMERICAN LIFE - - ALL DEPEND ON

12

8

PAGE 3

HOW MUCH EDUCATION THEY OBTAIN .

UNFORTUNATELY RIGHT NOW - -THOUSANDS

OF OUR YOUTH ARE NEEDLESSLY CARVING

THEMSELVES A NICHE IN THE BOTTOM PART OF THE

TOTEM POLE I MENTIONED. J-TOW??? 'BY DROPPING

OUT OF SCHOOL BEFORE THEY OBTAIN THEIR HIGH

SCHOOL DIPLOMA.

ESTIMATES OF HOW MANY STUDENTS DROP OUT

OF SCHOOL VARY -- IN PART BECAUSE THERE IS NO

UNIFORM DEFINITION OF EXACTLY WHO A

"DROPOUT" IS. NEVERTHELESS, ALL THE ESTIMATES

I HAVE SEEN WDICATE THAT THE DROPOUT

PHENOMENA IS SIGNIFICANT AND WIDESPREAD - -

ESPECIALLY AMONY MINORITY YOUTH. OUR

NATIONAL DROPOUT RATE IS SOMEWHERE AROUND

29 PERCENT - - A FIGURE REPRESENTING MILLIONS

UPON MILLIONS OF CHILDREN WHO ARE FAST

13

9

PAGE 4

BECOMING PART OF WHAT I FEAR WILL BE THE

PERMANENT UNDERCLASS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

FOR A NATION THAT PRIDES ITSELF ON

EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, IT IS A FIGURE THAT

SHOULD BE UNACEPTABLE TO ALL AMERICANS.

THE CAUSES FOR THIS PROBLEM ARE MANY.

GIVEN OUR CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE, MANY OF

THESE CHILDREN LEAVE SCHOOL TO HELP THEIR

FAMILIES BEAT BACK THE GRIP OF POVERTY. WHILE

SOME OF THEM MAY BE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO

FIND A JOB, THE VAST MAJORITY SOON DISCOVER

THAT LEAVING SCHOOL PREMATURELY CAUSES

LOSS OF ACCESS TO GOOD JOBS, REDUCED LIFETIME

EARNINGS, AND THE RISK OF LONG PERIODS OF

UNEMPLOYMENT - ALL OF WHICH WILL

ULTIMATELY LEAD TO A LOWER "QUALITY OF LIFE".

10

PAGE 5

THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE NOT THE

ONLY ONES WHO SUFFER IN THIS UNNECESSARY

TRAGEDY.

THE CONSEQUENCES TO SOCIETY ARE EQUALLY

AS DISMAL. THE FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND

- - GIVEN OUR BUDGET PROBLEMS AND THE

REDUCTION IN DOMESTIC SPENDING - IS THE

LIKIHOOD OF INCREASED DEMAND FOR

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND WELFARE

PAYMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, OUR ECONOMIC

OUTPUT IS DIMINISHED SINCE THE HUMAN

RESOURCES NECESSARY TO PRODUCE QUALITY

GOODS AND SERVICES ARE INCAPABLE OF MEETING

THE REQUIREMENTS OF EMPLOYMENT.

ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE TO SOCIETY IS THE

POSSIBLE INCREASE IN CRIME THAT DROPPING OUT

OF SCHOOL CAN CAUSE.

15

11

PAGE 6

YOUNG PEOPLE WITH NOTHING BUT TIME ON THEIR

HANDS, WITH NO JOB TO GO TO, AND NO MONEY IN

THEIR POCKETS, ESPECIALLY IN LARGE URBAN

CENTERS SUCH AS THE THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO

WHICH I REPRESENT, ARE PRIME 'CANDIDATES.

STATISTICS SHOW THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF

THOSE INCARCERATED IN OUR PRISONS LACK A HIGH

SCHOOL DIPLOMA.

H.R. 3042, WHICH HAS BEEN COSPONSORED BY 71

MEMBERS, INCLUDING SEVEN FROM THIS

SUBCOMMITTEE, IS DESIGNED TO ASSIST LOCAL

EDUCATION AGENCIES IN ESTABLISHING

PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE STUDENTS WHO HAVE

ALREADY DROPPED OUT TO RE-ENTER SCHOOL AND

COMPLETE THEIR EDUCATION. IT IS ALSO DESIGNED

TO HELP SCHOOL DISTRICTS ESTABLISH PROGRAMS

TO HELP IDENTIFY STUDENTS AT RISK OF DROPPING

12

PAGE 7 .

OUT AND PREVENT THEM FROM DOING SO.

AS OUR NATION'S SCHOOLS STRIVE FOR

EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE, WE CANNOT - - INDEED,

WE MUST NOT - FORGET THOSE CHILDREN WHO

HAVE FALLEN BY THE WAYSIDE. THE DROPOUT

PREVENTION AND RE-ENTRY ACT CALLS FOR AN

AUTHORIZATION LEVEL OF $50 MILLION. I REALIZE

THAT IN THIS ERA OF GRAMM-RUDMAN, MANY OF

OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE QUESTIONED THAT

FUMING LEVEL. I CAN TELL YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN,

IT WILL BE PENNIES COMPARED TO THE VALUE OF

THE LIVES WE CAN SAVE. OUR YOUTH ARE THE

LEADERS OF THE FUTURE. IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE

PASSAGE OF THE DROPOUT PREVENTION AND

RE-ENTRY ACT WILL PROVIDE SCHOOL DISTRICTS

WITH THE EXTRA INCENTIVE THEY NEED TO BRING

THIS NATIONAL TRAGEDY TO AN END.

17

13

PAGE 8

THIS SUBCOMMI1 LEE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO

AGAIN BE THE LEADING FORCE TO AFFECT OUR

NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY. I URGE YOU, MR.

CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE,

TO SETZF. THAT OPPORTUNITY AND MOVE QUICKLY

IN APPROVING H.R. 3042.

THANK YOU.

14

Chairman HAWKINS. Well, thank you, Mr. Hayes.Mr. HAYES. Yeah.Chairman HAWKINS. Mr. Martinez, the Chair will yield to you if

you care to make a statement at this point.Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, in the interest of time, I won't make a

statement, but I'll just say a couple of words.Nobody is more aware of dropouts and the reasons for dropping

out than I am. I came from a family of 74ne children. Only twocompleted high schoolmyself and my older sister.

And I think it is something that we have to do something about.Certainly, there are factors in the environment, the family home,that are really at the bottom cause for young people to drop out.And we've got to make up for that in some way.

Certainly, where the home can't do it, the school should be ableto do it, And I am very interested in Charlie Hayes' legislation.

Thank you.Chairman HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.The Chair would like to call to the witness table the witnesses

who will compose a panel. And as I cali their names I hope theywill be seated in front of us at the witness table.

Mr. William J. Gainer, Associate Director, Human Resources Di-vision, the General Accounting Office.

Ms. Frances Haywood, vice president, United Teachers of LosAngeles.

Mr. George Munoz, president, board of education, Chicago PublicSchools.

The Chair would like, at this time, to recognize one of the wit-nesses, Ms. Frances Haywood, who is vice president of the UnitedTeachers of Los Angeles, and a friend, and one who certainly hasbeen very helpful to the Chair in many ways in the area of LosAngeles.

We perhaps have a little larger school district than even that ofChicago, Mr. Hayes. We possibly have more dropouts than youhave. It is a continuing interest to us. And obviously we are verymuch concerned with the proposal.

Ms. Haywood represents a group of teachers, certainly the larg-est group of teachers in Los Angeles. And we are delighted that shehas taken the time to come all the way across the country.

Mr. Martinez and I make this trip constantly. And we havelearned not to enjoy the trip because of the distance.

And certainly it is a distinct pleasure to have her as one of thewitnesses this morning.

We will call on the witnesses as they were introduced, beginningwith Mr. Gainer of the General Accounting Office.

Mr. Gainer, we are delighted to have you with us too.

STATEMENT BY WILLIAM J. GAINER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICEMT. GAINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I am pleased to be here today to assist you in your deliberations

on H.R. 3042, the Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act.My testimony will provide summary information on the current

state of knowledge, based on our ongoing review of national youth

19

15

surveys and the literature on this subject, which we are performingat the subcommittee's request.

In particular, I will discuss the number of dropouts, the factorsrelated to youth dropping out of school, and the severe labormarket consequences of not fmishing high school.

Before I do, though, I'd like to describe just why I believe weshould be concerned with the dropout problem. Given the fact thatwe've seen statistics, over the years, that overall high school com-pletion has risen dramatically. Only 38 percent of persons aged 25to 29 completed high school in 1940, compared with 86 percent in1984.

For blacks, the increase in high school completion has been evenmore striking, rising from 12 percent in 1940 to 79 percent in 1984.

But despite this progress, there are countervailing factors whichcause concern even though the graduation rates are improving.One such factor is that high school students' achievement levels de-clined during the late sixties and the seventies. In addition, the un-employment rate for black youth has risen steadily over a longperiod of time and continues to do so today.

For example, in 1972, the unemployment rate for black teenagerswas already 35 percent. But through recession and recovery it hascontinued to rise to 43 percent in 1986.

For their white counterparts, the unemployment rate was muchlower-14 percent in 1972, and up only slightly in 1986.

Not only has this substantial widening of the racial gap in unem-ployment rates for youth occurred, but there has also been an in-crease in the gap between black and white youth who even seekwork.

In 1986, the labor force participation rate of black youth was 57percent, while for whites it was 68 percent.

But to come back to dropouts, and this is the crucial point,chronic joblessness is concentrated among poor and minority youthwho have dropped out of school.

To summarize what is known and not known about dropouts, I'dlike to make five points and then elaborate on each one.

First, data on the number of school dropout:: are inconclusive.National estimates of the rate at which youth drop out range from13 to 25 percent depending on the source of the data and the meth-odology used.

Research findings generally have shown much higher dropoutrates for inner-city youth, Hispanics, blacks, and disadvantagedyoung people.

What is not as commonly known is that during the several yearsafter youth drop out, sizable proportions of these youth return toschool.

As I said earlier, the labor force consequences or employment op-portunities are very poor for youth that drop out of school, andthey are worse for blacks than for whites.

Finally, based on our review of the literature, and I think this isvery relevant to the legislation under consideration, it is not gener-ally known what works in terms of specific interventions to pre-vent youth from dropping out of school or to encourage their re-entry.

20

16

THE NUMBER OF DROPOUTS

Data on the number of dropouts is inconclusive because defini-tions of dropouts vary and data collection and computing methodsdiffer, as do the populations that have been studied in the varioussurveys.

We looked at two basic sources, national surveys and school dis-trict data. The national surveys provide education progress infor-mation on samples of youthindhidualsin contrast to school dis-trict administrative records which necessarily must lose track ofmany students who leave a school or a geographic area.

The first survey we looked at was the Current PopulationSurvey. This survey covers households on a nationwide basis,which we believe is generally representative of the dropout prob-lem. School dropouts in that survey are defined as persons who areneither enrolled in school nor are high school graduates.

In 1985, this survey showed a dropout rate of 13 percent for 16 to24 year olds who were dropouts. This equates to 4.3 million drop-outs, of whom 3.5 million were white and about 700,000 were black.

The CPS data also show that the overall dropout rate for youthage 16 to 24 has remained roughly the same for each of the past 10years, declining from 20 percent in the early sixties.

The dropout rate for blacks, however, has declined from 21 per-cent in October 1974 to 15 percent in October 1985. But, as I saidearlier, during that same period of time the youth unemploymentrate has increased substantially, particularly for black and inner-city youth.

We also reviewed two national longitudinal surveys of youthHigh School and Beyond, which has periodically surveyed 30,000individuals who were high school sophomores in 1980, and the Na-tional Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience.

According to High School and Beyond, about 14 percent of 1980high school sophomores dropped out before their expected gradua-tion in 1982.

However, the dropout rate from households with low income, lowskill wage earners, and limited educational backgrounds for theparents was about three times the rate of those from the high endof the socioeconomic scale-17 percent for those in the lowestgroup, 5 percent for those in the highest income group.

According to the National Longitudinal Surveys, among youthage 18 during the period 1979-82, about 15 percent of whites, 17percent of blacks, and 31 percent of Hispanics failed to completehigh school.

For older minority youth, age 21, the dropout rates are moresevere. For whites, blacks, and Hispanics, they were 12, 23, and 36percent respectively.

As for school system data, individual school districts differ in theprocedures which they use. For example, some school districtscount as dropouts students who have moved to other areas butreenroll in school, some exclude private school enrollments. Otherscount youth as in school who have transferred to high school andthen drop out.

17

School districts may look at the number of youth who enteredthe fifth grade, compare it to the number graduating 8 years later,and consider the difference to be dropouts.

National data, understandably, from these widely diverse schooldistrict practices, show a number that is substantially differentthan those based on the national surveysthat is, that about onein four youths do not graduate from high school.

Thus, the various national surveys cited have the quality ofgiving you a representative idea of what's happening in the Nationin terms of dropouts, while school district data must be viewedwith some skepticism because the districts cannot have completeinformation on many students who return and fmish their highschool education in other places.

/ think the implication for the legislation you're considering isthat at the local level a standard defmition would be very useful,and some guidelines for these at the national level would probablybe useful to school districts.

But in order to get a good estiniate of dropouts you're still goingto have to go back to a national survey.

As I indicated earlier, research has shown higher dropout ratesfor Hispanics, blacks, and low-income youth, but there are a varie-ty of other factors.

One study showed that dropouts report a variety of reasons forleaving schoolpoor grades, not liking school, marriage or mar-riage plans, pregnancy, and a preference to work instead of goingto school.

Another study measured the characteristics and circumstances ofyouth directly to isolate predictors of who was likely to drop out.The following factors are the most important--those youth whowere 2 or more years behind grade level, those who were pregnant,those from single parent households or households where thefather had dropped out of school, and those youth with little knowl-edge of the labor market.

One thing that confounds dropout statistics is, as I mentionedearlier, the fact that many people return to school after they ini-tially drop out.

High School and Beyond survey data show that about one-half ofthe sophomores who dropped out of school between 1980 and 1982had returned to school or were in GED classes by 1984. Of thisgroup, 38 percent had completed their diploma requirements by1984.

And here is another crucial point. White dropouts were morelikely to return and complete school than blacks or Hispanics, aswere youth in suburban areas as opposed to those in rural or inner-city areas.

The data also show that black and Hispanic youth with mediumand high scores on reading, vocabulary, and mathematics achieve-ment tests taken when they were sophomores were much morelikely to return and complete school than were their white counter-parts. So that if the early high school education experience is goodfor youth who might ordinarily be at risk of dropping out, they'regoing to do better than if that early experience is poor.

I want to mention, however, that the analysts of the study I'vebeen referring to here also pointed out that the figures for youth

4'12

18

who return to school and complete school are not indicative of theexperience of younger dropouts, that is, those who drop out beforethe 10th grade. When these younger students drop out, they arethought to be much less likely to return to school.

The labor market consequences for youth who drop out of schoolare very poor. According to 1985 Current Population Survey data,one in four dropouts age 16 to 24 were unemployed. This comparesto a much lower number, 1 in 10, for those who fmish high school.

In addition, large proportions of dropouts do not even seek work.For example, only 68 percent of the 16- to 24-year-old dropoutswere in the labor force in contrast to nearly 20 percentage pointsmore, 87 percent, of the graduates.

The CPS also showed that black dropouts were far less likely tobe in the labor force than whites, and that they had much higherunemployment rates.

In 1985, 53 percent of black dropouts were in the labor force, andtwo-fifths of those were unemployed, two out of five. In contrast,nearly three-quarters of white dropouts were in the labor force,and about one-fourth were unemployed.

Dropouts who were employed were also in lower skilled jobs thanwere the graduates. For example, among the employed male drop-outs ages 16 to 24, about two-fifths were working as machine opera-tors, fabricators, laborers, and c dier low skill jobs. Only 8 percentwere in higher skilled technical, sales, and administrative supportpositions-8 percent, which compares to 20 percent among gradu-ates.

Looking at programs to intervene for dropouts, the literature weexamined showed that many programs are being undertaken whichare aimed at dropout prevention, school reentry, remedial educa-tion, and employment related training. However, with few excep-tions, such as the Job Corps, there is little information available onthe numbers and characteristics of the persons served or on the ef-fectiveness of the programs.

That doesn't mean that local programs are not effective. We justdon't know, based on the research that's been done, which pro-grams are effective.

For example, a Congressional Reset rch Service report on highschool dropouts, noting this lack of information, suggested that theknowledge gap may be due, in part, to the difficulty in distinguish-ing between programs for dropouts and those for disadvantagedyouth generally.

A similar review by the National Academy of Sciencea points outthat there is little information on how to prevent youth from drop-ping out, how to encourage their reentry, or how to recruit andretain dropouts in "second chance" programs. It recommends thatdropouts be given priority in employment and training programs,and that the subject be given priority in research agendas. I thinkthat's also crucial to the bill under discussion here because thekind of demonstration that is being proposed is probably very nec-essary, because it has an evaluation component, and because itwould support the building of a knowledge laase that could be usedby -thool districts all over the country.

In conclusion, although for higher proportions of youth completehigh school today than 20 years ago, the absolute number of drop-

2,3

19

outs is still very troublesome, particularly among minority youth.And the labor market consequences of dropping out in terms of un-employment and earnings, for that matter, are quite severe. Whatis still not known is what works, what helps improve the educa-tional and training opportunities and the employment prospects fordropouts.

At the subcommittee's request, we will continue to study thisarea, and plan to do a field survey of local programs to find outwhich interventions are likely to be helping dropouts. We're goingto begin that work in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement.Chairman HAWKINS. Thank you.[The prepared statement of William J. Gainer followsj

20

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICEWASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

MDR RELEASE ON DELIVERYEXPECTED AT 9:30 A.M.TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1986

STATEMENT OFWILLIAM J. GAINER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION

BEFORE THESUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY,

AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONHOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

ONTSE SCHOOL DROPOUT PROBLEM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to assist you in yourdeliberations on HAI. 3042, The Dropout Prevention and Reentry Actof 1985. My testimony will provide summary information on thecurrent state of knowledge on the school dropout problem. Thisinformation is from our ongoing review of national youth surveysand the literature which we are performing at the Subcommittee'srequcst. In particular, I will discuss (1) the number ofdropouts, (2) the factors related to youth dropping out of school,and (3) the labor market consequences of not finishing highschool.

Before I do though, I'd like to describe why we should beconcerned with dropouts, given the fact that overall, high schoolcompletion has risen dramatically in the past half century--only38 percent of p!rsons age 25-29 completed high school in 1940,compared with 86 percent in 1984. For blacks the increase in highschool completion has been even more striking, rising from 12percent in 1940 to 79 percent in 1984. But despite this progressthere are countervailing factors which cause concern even thoughgraduation rates are increasing. One such factor is that highschool students achievement levels declined during the late 1960sand the 1970s. In addition, the unemployment rate for black youthhas risen steadily over a long period of time and continues to doso. For example, in 1972, the unemployment rate for blackteenagers was already 35 peroent, but continued to rise to 43percent in April 1986. For their white counterparts, theunemployment rate was much lower--14 percent in 1972 and up onlyslightly to 16 percent in April 1986.

Not only has this substantial widening of the racial gap inunemployment rates for youth occurred, but there has also been anincrease in the gap between black and white youth who even seekwork. In April 1986, the labor force participation rate of blackyouth was 57 percent, while for whites it was 68 percent. Now tocome back to dropouts, and this is the crucial point, chronicjoblessness is concentrated among poor and minority youth who havedropped out of school.

To summarize what is known and not known about dropouts, I'dlike to make five points anZ L4e.I elabz...c.te on each enc.

--First, data on the number of school dropouts areinconclusive. National estimates of the rate at whichyouth drop out of school range from about 13 to 25

2 5

21

percent. The differencea result from factors such asvarying definitions, data collection methods and the groupof youth studied.

- -Second, research findings generally have shown much higherdropout rates for inner city youth, hispanics, blacks, anddisadvantaged young people. A--7.7 the factors which aregood predictors of which young people will drop out arebeing two or more years behind grade level, being pregnant,and coming from a home where the father dropped out ofschool.

- -During the first several years after youth drop out,sizeable proportions of young dropouts (perhaps as high as50 percent) return to school or enroll in General EducationDevelopment (GED) programs.

--Labor market opportunities are poor for youth whohave not completed high school, and they are worse forblacks t. an for whites, as evidenced by continuallyworsening unemployment rates for black teenagers and youngadults.

- -Finally, based on our review of the literature andother literature summaries, it is not generally known "whatworks" in terms of specific interventions to prevent youthfrom dropping out of school or to encourage their reentry.

NUMBER OF DROPOUTS

Data on the number of dropouts are inconclusive. Definitionsof dropouts vary, and data collection and computing methodsdiffer, as do the populations that are studied. These factorslargely account for the wide range of estimates of dropouts. Welooked at the two basic sources for dropout statisticsnationalsurveys and school district records. The national surveys provideeducation progress information from samples of the youthpopulation in contrast to school district administrative recordswhich necessarily lose track of many students who leave the schoolor geographic area.

We reviewed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' CurrentPopulation Survey (CPS), a survey of households which isreprescntative of the working age civilian population. Schooldropouts in that survey are defined as persons who are neitherenrolled in school nor high school graduates. (High schoolcompletion includes attainment of the GED.) October 1985 CPS datashow that 13 percent of 16-24 year olds were dropouts. Thisequates to 4.3 million dropouts, of whom about 3.5 million werewhite and about 700,000 were black.

CPS data also show that the dropout rate for youth age 16-24has remained roughly the same for each of the past ten years,about 13-14 percent, declining from 20 percent in the early1960s. For white youth, the dropout rate has been about 13percent for the past decade; while for blacks the dropout rate hasdeclined--from 21 percent in October 1974 to 15 percent in October1985. (Exhibit A.)

We also reviewed analyse:, of data from two nationallongitudinal surveys of youth--High School and Beyond (sponsoredby the Department of Education), which has periodically surveyedover 30,000 individuals who were high school sophomores in 1980,and the National Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience

2

22

(sponsored by the Department of Labor), which tracks over 12,000youth who were 14-21 years old when first interviewed in 1979.These surv..ys are principal sources of recent data on dropouts.

According to data from High School and Beyond, about 14percent of 1980 high school sophomores dropped out before theirexpected graduation in 1982. However, the dropout rate for youthfrom households with low income, low skill wage earners, andlimited educational backgrounds was about three times the rate ofthose from the high end of the socioeconomic scale (17 percentvs. 5 percent, respectively). (Figure 1.)

FIGURE IDRCPOUT RATES OF woo HIGH SCHOOL SOPHOMORES'

(FALL 1982)

DICOME. OCCUPATIONAL ANDEDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

MOH scHocn. PROGRAM: issir-PLZPORTLI) GRADE:

.VOy.

toOmtv

u, C.LOW G/TtC

imam.. 1

mxn.

mn

SOURCE: SAMUEL S. PENG (HIGH SCHOOL ANDU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

BEYOND),

According to data from the National Longitudinal Surveys,among youth age 18 during the period 1979-82, about 15 percent ofwhites, 17 percent of blacks and 31 percent of hispanics failed tocomplete high school (or attain a GED certlficate). For olderyouth (age 21), the dropout rates for whites, blacks and nispanicswere 12 percent, 23 percent, and 36 percent, respectively, whichindicates that fewer blacks and hispanics return and completeschool.

As for school system data, individual school districts differin the procedures which they use to define dropouts and calculaterates. For example, some school districts count as dropouts,students have moved to other areas and enrolled in otherschools; some exclude private school enrollments; others countyouth as "in school" who have transferred to "night school" andsubsequently dropped out.

School districts may look at the number of youth who entcredthe fifth grade, compare it to the number graduating 8 yearslater, and consider the difference to be dropouts. National databased on these widely diveree school district practices, show thatin each year for the past decade about one in four youth in theU.S. did not graduate in the year they would have been expected tocomplete high school. School district data, however, show muchlarger dropout rates for inner city public schools, includingreports of rates of 50 percent or more for some schools.

Thus, the various national surveys cited here providerepresentative estimates of the extent of the dropout problemamong various subgroups, while school district data must be viewedwitt some skepticism because they cannot have complete informationon many students.

3

2,7

23

FACTORS RELATING TO DROPPINGOUT OF SCHOOL

As I indicated earlinr, research has shown higher dropoutrates for hispanics, blacks, and low-income youth. One studyshowed that, overall, youth dropouts report the following reasonsfor leaving school--poor grades, not liking school, marriage ormarriage plans, pregnancy, and a preference for work versusschool. (See Exhibit B.)

Another study1 measured the characteristics andcircumstances of youth directly to isolate predictors of who islikely to drop out. The following were shown to be importantfactors in identifying students at risk:

- -those who were two or more years behind grade level,- -who were pregnant,- -those from single parent households or where the father had

dropped out of school, and--those with little knowledge of the labor market.

This study also found that youth were more likely to stay inschool if they were enrolled in a college preparatory curriculum,were satisfied with school, did not intend to marry within 5years, expected to attend college, and had more regular religiousattendance.

DROPOUTS NHO REENTER SCHOOL

A significant number of dropouts eventually return toschool. High School and Beyond survey data show that about halfof the sophomores who dropped out of school between 1980 and 1982had returned to school or were in GED classes by 1984. Of theseyouth, 38 percent had completed their diploma requirements by1984. (The others were either still enrolled in school or haddropped out again.) White dropouts were more likely to return andcomplete school than blacks or hispanics. But black and hispanicmales were more likely to return and graduate than their femalecounterparts.2 (Figure 2.)

1Michael E. Horus and Susan A. Carpenter, "Choices in Education,"Chapter 4 in Youth and the Labor Market, Analysis of the NationalLongitudinal Survey, Michael E. Borus, Editor, The W. E. UpjohnInstitute for Employment Research, 1984.

2The difference between the proportions of white and black dropoutyouth who returned and completed school is largely accounted forby the lower school return and completion rates of young blackwomen.

4

9Shw

FIGURE 2PERCENT OF DROPOUTS WHO RETURNED AND COMPLETED

SCHOOL BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX

WHITE BLACK HISPANIC TOTAL

Ma MALES

FDAALES

POUNCE: ANDIUM J. ICOLSTAD & JEFFREY A. OWINGS(HIGH SCHOOL AND BEYOND). U.S. DEPARTMENT or EDUCATION

These data also show that black and hispanic youth withmedium and high scores on a reading, vocabulary, and mathematicsachievement test taken when they were sophomores, were more likelyto return and complete school than were their white counterparts.(Exhibit C.)

I want to mention, however, that the analysts of this studyalso pointed out that ;Ale 38 percent figure for youth who returnand complete school--and the 50 percent estimate for youth whoreturn to school--are not indicative of the experience of youngerdropouts, who left school before the -iddle of the tenth grade.The researchers believe that when th youth drop out they areless likely to return to school.

The National Longitudinal Surveys also allow the isolation offactors associated with dropouts returning to school. Forexample, those who were expecting to attend college, were nevermarried, younger, or lived in counties with higher per pupilexpenditures were more likely to return to school.

LABOR MARKET CONSEQUENCESOF DROPPING OUT

For youth who drop out, labor market opportunities are poor.According to 1985 CPS data, atout one in four dropouts age 16-24were unemployed, compared with about one in ten high schoolgraduates (who were not enrolled in school). In addition, largeproportions of dropouts do not even seek work. For example, 68percent of the 16-24 year old dropouts were in the labor force(those employed and those without a job and seeking work), incontrast to 87 percent of the graduates (not enrolled in school).Data from the National Longitudinal Surveys showed similardifferences in labor market success between dropouts andgraduates. They also showed that dropouts who were employed werein less desirable jobs. (Exhibit D.)

5

29

25

The CPS also showed that black dropouts were far lesslikely to be in the labor force than whites, and that they hadmuch higher unemployment rates. In 1985, fifty three percent ofblack dropouts were in the labor force, and two-fifths of thesewere unemployed. In contrast, 71 percent of white dropouts werein the labor force and about one-fourth were unemployed.

Dropouts who were employed were in lower skilled jobs thanwere graduates. For example, among the employed male dropoutsages 16-24, about two-fifths were working as machine operators,fabricators and laborers, and about one-sixth were in servicejobs. Only 8 percent were in higher skilled technical, sales,and administrative support positions. Conversely, about 20percent of male graduates were in these higher skill jobs.

Similarly, over half of women graduates were in technical,sales and administrative support jobs in contrast to aboutone-fourth of the dropouts who were much more likely to beworking in the lower skill occupations.

PROGRAMS FOR DROPOUTS

The literature we examined showed that many programs arebeing undertaken which are aimed at dropout prevention, schoolreentry, remedial education and employment related training.However, with few exceptions, there is little informationavailable on the numbers and characteristics of the personsserved or on the effectiveness of the programs. A CongressionalResearch Service issue brief on high school dropouts, notingthis lack of information, suggests that the knowledge gap may bedue in part to the difficulty in distinguishing between programsfor dropouts and those for disadvantaged youth generally. Italso mentions that there are no national data compiled ondropout programs because most programs have been designed forcommunities. Similarly, a review by the National Academy ofSciences' National Research Council on evaluations of employmentand training programs for youth, points out that there is littleinformation on how to prevent youth from dropping out of school,encouraging their reentry, or recruiting and retaining dropoutsin "second chance" employment and training programs. Itrecommends that dropouts be given priority in employment andtraining programs, and that the dropout issue be given priorityin research.

In conclusion, although far higher proportions of youthcomplete high school today than 20 years ago, the absolutenumber of dropouts is still very troublesome--particularlyamong minority youth. And the labor market consequences ofdropping out in terms of unemployment are quite severe. What isstill not known is "what works" in improving the educational andemployment prospects for dropouts. At the Subcommittee'srequest, we will be surveying school districts over the nextyear to identify and prnvide information on interventions whichmay help to reduce the number of dropouts.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I andmy colleagues would be pleased to respond to any questions.

6

26

EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A

Dropout Rates of Youth Ages 16 to 24 a By Race andSex, for Selected Years

Dropout Rate (Percent)

Total YouthAges 16-24

Men16-24

Women16-24

Whites16-24

Blacks16-24

October 1985 13 13 12 12 15

October 1984 13 14 12 13 16

October 1983 14 15 13 13 18

October 1982 14 14 13 13 18

October 1981 14 15 13 13 19

October 1978 14 15 14 13 20October 1974 14 14 14 13 21b

a Dropouts are persons who are not enrolled in school and whoare not high school graduates.

b Blacks and othcr races.

Source: Adapted from unpublished tabulations from the Bureauof Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, October 1984and October 1983; and from the following Bureau of LaborStatistics sources: table B-4 and table B-14, Students,Graduates, and Dropouto, October 1980-82, Bulletin 2192; TableA, Table B, and Table K, Students, Graduates, and Dropouts inthe Labor Market, October 1978, Special Labor Force Report223; and Table A, Table B, Table M-1, and Table M-2, Students,Graduates, and Drapouts in the Labor Market, October 1974,Special Labor Force Report 180.

7

31.

27

EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B

Reasons for Dropping Out Cited by DropoutsFrom 1980 Sophomore Cohort, by Sex

Reasons Male Female

School Related

Percent

1. Expelled or suspended 13.0 5.32. Had poor grades 35.9 29.73. Schocl was not for me 34.8 31.14. School ground too dangerous 2.7 1.75. Didn't get into desired program 7.5 4.56. Couldn't get along with teachers 20.6 9.5

Family Related1. Married or planned to get married 6.9 30.72. Was pregnant N/A 23.43. Had to support family 13.6 8.3

Peer Related1. Friends were dropping out 6.5 2.42. Couldn't get along with students 5.4 5.9

Health RelatedIllness or disability 4.6 6.5

Other1. Offered job and chose to work 26.9 10.72. Wanted to enter military 7.2 .83. Moved too far from school 2.2 5.34. Wanted to travel 7.0 6.5

Note: Students might report more than one reason.

Universe: A total of 2,289 dropouts from among more than 30,000sophomores in 1980 from 1,015 high schools throughout the U.S.

Source: High School and Beyond, NCES 93-221b, National Centerfor Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Citedin Table 8, High School Dropouts: A National Concern by SamuelS. Peng, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.Department of Education, prepared Eor the Business AdvisoryCommission, Education Commission of the States, March 1985.

8

02

28

EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C

PERCENT OF DROPOUTS IN 1980 1982 WHORETURNED AND COMPLETED SCHOOL BY 1984

IN EACH SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPING,

BLACK DROPOUTS WERE LESS LIKELY

TO RETURN AND COMPLETE SCHOOL

THAN WERE runs

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPING

III ova11111(TE

BLACKS AND HISPANICS WITH HIGH AND

MEDIUM TEST SCORES WERE MORE LIKELY

TO RETURN AND COMPLETE SCHOOL THAN

THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

1E7 SCORES

WetIn BOCK

MISPNIC

SUBURBAN DROPOUTS WERE MORE LIKELY

TO RETURN AND COMPLETE SCHOOL THAN

THOSE FROM URBAN AND RURAL AREAS

THOSE YOUTH WHO EXPECTED TO GO

TO COLLEGE BUT DROPPED OUT OFIUGH SCHOOL WERE MORE LIKELY TO

RETURN AND COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL

IOC ICC/IE01 a MI MIDIDINEW06

SOURCE: ANDREW J. KOLSTAD & JEFFREY A. OWINGS(HIGH SCHOOL AND BEYOND). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

9

29

EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D

Job Characteristics, by High School Completion Status, 1979

Characteristics

Nonenrolled

Pigh schoolgraduates

High schooldropouts

Opportunities provided by joba

To do a number of different things 74.6 57.3

To deal with people 83.4 72.9

For independent thought or action 73.4 65.3

To do a job from beginning to end 88.3 79.4

To feel that the job itself is verysignificant or important in thebroader scheme of things 76.8 67.7

Characteristics of job b

The skills you are learning wouldbe valuable in getting a betterjob 76.1 64.4

The job is dangerous 33.3 41.6

Your are exposed to unhealthyconditions 24.3 30.1 .

The pay is good 73.8 68.5

The job security is good 82.8 74.8I

a Proportion who felt the job gave a moderate amount, quite a lot oror a maximum amount.

b Proportion who felt the statement was very or somewhat true.

Universe: A total of abut 3,000 youth age 18-22 on interview date in1979 who were employed and not enrolled in school, from the NationalLongitudinal Surveys.

Source: Adapted from table 16.6 in Pathways to the Future: ALongitudinal Study of Young Americans Preliminary Report: youth andthe Labor Market--1979 by Michael E. Horus, Joan E. Crowley, RussellW. Rumberger, Richard Santos, and David Shapiro, Center for HumanResource Research, The Ohio State University, January 1980.

10

en et.ve ne 3 4-

30

Chairman HAWKINS. The next witness is Ms. Haywood.We welcome you and look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF FRANCES HAYWOOD, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITEDTEACHERS OF LOS ANGELES

MS. HAYWOOD. Thank you, Congressman Hawkins. And thankyou for those kind words earlier.

I have a prepared statement which I'd like to have entered in tothe record.

Chairman HAWKINS. Without objection, the statement in its en-tirety will be entered in the record.

Ms. HAYWOOD. I am Frances Haywood, vice president of UnitedTeachers, Los Angeles. United Teachers, Los Angeles, is affiliatedwith both the National Education Association and the AmericanFederation of Teachers. And we represent the 32,000 teachers andother school persounel in the Los Angeles Unified School district.

Our UTLA members and teachers throughout this country are inthe front line every day to ensure that every school child is provid-ed a quality education that will make him or her a productive citi-zen.

We believe that the enactment of the Dropout Prevention andReentry Act, H.R. 3042, would be an important step in addressingthe dropout problem by providing our children with alternatives toleaving the classroom. For this reason, I am pleased to appearbefore the subcommittee to share my views and the concerns ofteachers on this national problem which has reached epidemic pro-portions.

The national statistics are grim, with two-thirds of the studentswho drop out do so because they have giv,a up on school as a vehi-cle for their success, but, more devastating, they have given up onthemselves.

The loss of even one student is a waste of the human potentialthis Nation can ill afford.

In California, my home State, the statistics are even more stag-gering. California, whose economic wealth and natural resourceswould rank it as one of the top 10 nations in the world, has thedubious distinction of ranking 34th among all States in the per-centage of students who do not graduate. Twenty-three percent ofCalifornia students do not complete high school.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, with over 600,000 stu-dents, the conservative percentage is 43 percent of the students donot complete high school. This is further aggravated in Los Angelesby the critical teacher shortage, the 84 languages spoken, over100,000 students who have been identified as limited English profi-cient speakers, the diversity of the student population, and thedwindling source of funding for education.

The district, last year, set aside $1 millkni to fund its dropoutprogram. With a 43-percent dropout rate, $1 million does not beginto address the problem. H.R. 3042 could go a long way in helping.

I want to stress that student attrition from school is not anurban problem. It is a problem that crosses all ethnic groups and isin rural and suburban communities.

35

31

In a study completed by the California Assembly Office of Re-search, it was found that statewide, in 119 schools, the dropout ratewas more than 40 percent. And of those 119 schools, 80 percent ofthe high schools were in medium to small school districts of fewerthan 40,000 students.

Our children who dropped out or are at risk fail to see that theysimultaneously set in motion an unfortunate sequence of eventsthat will continually rob them not only of a high school diploma,but also a better job, higher wages, the ability to participate in thedemocratic process as informed voters, and, more importantly, theywill not be able to help their own children.

Dropouts also become the functional illiterates of our society.While the number of functional illiterates increase, their num-

bers are not distributed equitably amongst all groups. Forty per-cent of black and Hispanic students can be classified as functionalilliterates as compared to 16 percent of white.

These figures are reflected in the unemployment rate, where 40percent of black youth are unemployed. And it's found that 23 per-cent of the Hispanic youth seeking jobs cannot find them.

Each of us is aware of the data that shows that it's cheaper tosend a child to Harvard or Yale than to keep a person in prison.

Congressman Hawkins and members of the subcommittee, if weas a nation continue to fail to investigate and, more importantly,invest in dropout prevention and the recovery of those childrenwho have dropped out, we will all pay the cost of greater unem-ployment, lost taxes, and the lost productivity of our importantnatural resource, our children, our future.

I am an elementary school teacher, having spent the majority ofmy 22 years in education as .- rst grade teacher. I know that thesigns of early identification ntial dropouts is evident. I havehad first graders that I kno,A -d not make it. Today, I wonderwhat has happened to some of itudents.

The potentiality of their failure was exhibited in the form of poorattendance, tardiness, truancy, health and family problems, pooracademic progress, lack of social and emotional development, andthe inability of the school to adequately fund counseling and alter-native school programs.

Mr. Chairman, your efforts to call attention to the school dropoutprogram and to expand the education reform movement to includeat risk children is well documented.

In February 1985, you and other Members of the House andSenate convened a conference on school dropouts here on CapitolHill. NEA and UTLA were pleased to participate in that gatheringof educators, researchers, practitioners, theorists, and program ad-ministrators.

Conference participants were called together to discuss who isdropping out of school, why students drop out, what successfuldropout programs exist, and recommendations for legislative pro-posals.

A summary of the conference findings on the reasons studentsleave school before graduation included gang violence, suspensionsfrom school, teenage pregnancies, alientation from peers and teach-ers, and early marriages, scholastic failures, economic deprivation,

32

lack of educational resources, poor school experience, and parentallimits on school attendance to do such things as household chores.

H.R. 3042, the Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act, is designedto address two major areasthe development of more comprehen-sive data on the school dropout problem, and the lack of program-matic solutions.

The bill would direct the Secretary of Education to conduct thenational study to the extent and nature of the problem, develop astandard defmition of a dropout, and determine factors contribut-ing to the current dropout situation.

United Teachers, Los Angeles, and the National Education Asso-ciation believe that enactment of this legislation would muve theNation one giant step forward in providing all students equality ofopportunity to achieve their measure of success.

The educational reform movem,mt is mushrooming throughoutthe country in ways we in the education field could not have imag-ined. Local school districts, and communities, and parents areworking together.

In Los Angeles, there is a group called the Southern CaliforniaCommunity Relations Committee, who, in September, will be bring-ing the community together to address this need of why studentsdrop out.

Last year, there was introduced a piece of legislation called theSchool Excellence and Reform Act, H.R. 2840. We feel that thatlegislation will address the needg of at-risk children in a very im-portant way. The legislation was targeted to aid and meet theneeds of historically unserved and underserved studentsaid forsuch programs as dropout prevention, early childhood education,school day care, in-service teacher training, effective schools, andsecondary basic skills.

UTLA and the NEA believe it is critical that this legislation alsobe enacted.

The NEA, last year, at its convention in Washington, DC, decid-ed, the 7,500 representatives, to initiate a project called OperationRescue. The NEA decided that we, as teachers, need to be a part ofthe solution to this problem of dropout. And $1 of every member'smoney was put in a fund called Operation Rescue.

I'm proud to say that when we distributed the information in LosAngeles to our teachers about Operation Rescue many teachersasked and requested information as to how they could write agrant to do things at their own school to help their students.

The NEA has set aside $1 of every member's money to fund thisproject.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the NEA and UTLA be-lieve that there are no throwaway students, no expendable youngpeople. The mission of the public schools is to accommodate theneed of all students.

We believe further that the education reform movement must beexpanded to include all students, not only the gifted and talented,but those at risk, including the handicapped. We must not allowthese students to continue to slip through the cracks of despair byour failure of our shortsightedness and insensitivity to their specialneeds.

37

33

While education is the centerpiece of national focus, we nowhave the opportunity. It's the right environment in which we canhelp our young people.

Enactment of the Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act is essen-tial to national efforts to stem the tide of students who drop out ofour schools and later drop out of society.

Thank you very much.Chairman HAWKINS. Well, thank you, Ms. Haywood.[The prepared statement of Frances Haywood follows:]

o"I 8

34

LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION

TESTIMONY OF THE

UNITED TEACHERS-LOS ANGELES

ON

THE DROPOUT PREVENTION AND REENTRY ACT

PRESENTED BY

FRANCES HAYWOOD

VICE PRESIDENT, UTLA

MAY 20, 1985

MARY HATWOOD F VTR ELL, No-Hew KEITH GEIGER, V.ce P.m.dent ROXANNE E. BRADSHAW, SecwaryTrolutireDON CAMERON, Exec.. DHirclo. 12021 822.7300

3 9

35

Mr. Chairman,

I am Frances Eaywood, Vice President of the united Teachers-Los Angeles (UTLA), a local affiliate of the National EducationAssociation (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).UTLA represents 32,000 teachers and other school personnel in theLos Angeles Unified Schoo District who are on the front line ofthis nation's efforts to ensure that every schoolchild isprovided a quality education that will lead to productivecitizenship. Our members have firsthand knowledge of theconsequences that youngsters must face when they leave highschool before graduation. We believe enactment of the DropoutPrevention and Reentry Nct (H.R. 3042) would be an important steoin addressing the schoo" dropout problem by providing youngsterswith alternatives to le.ming the classroom. For this reason, Iam pleased to appear be:ore this subcommittee to share my viewson this national problem which has reached epidemic proportions.

Prevalence of the School Dropout Problem

National statistics on school dropouts are very grim -- two-thirds of the students who drop out do so because they have givenup on school as a vehicle for their success. They simply don'tbelieve school will work for them because they don't see how itever ha6. Mr. Chairman, the loss of even one student is a wasteof human potential this country can 1:1 afford. Yet my homestate of California is experiencing a dropout rate of 25 percentand in the Los Angeles Unified school District the statistic is43 percent. This is an alarming reality for any school district-- yet alone one with 698,000 students. The dropout problem inLos Angeles is unique in that it is aggravated by a criticallanguage barrier. Some 84 different languages are spoken withinthe Los Angeles school district. Mr. Chairman, the youngsterswho drop out of school fail to see that they simultaneously setin motion an unfortunate sequence of events the il1 continuallyrob them -- not only of a high school diploma L also of betterjobs, higher wages, and other important benefitb andopportunities.

Consequences of Dropping Out

In 1984 the National Center for Educational Statisticsreported that 36 percent of high school dropouts were unemployedcompared to 21 percent of high school graduates who did notenroll in college. Young people in general have an unemploymentrate three times that of adults. The Education Commission on theStates (ECS) estimates that more than three million 16 to 24-year-olds are looking for work and another 391,000 are claesifiedas ''discouraged'' -- i.e. they have given up. The unemploymentrate among slack youth is 40 percent -- nearly three times thatof whites which is roughly 15 percent. Twen:;y-four percent ofHispanic youth are filling to work but cannot find jobs. If wereduce the issue of youth unemployment to its nub, one importantfact looms large -- these youngsters have no high school diploma.Men and women 25 years old and older who did not complete highschool earned about one-third leas than those who graduated. Andwithout skills and a job, many dropouts turn to deliquenCY andcrime.

The U.S. Department of Justice found that the majority ofinmates in local jails had not earned high school diplomas: 59percent of white inmates and 63 percent of Black inmates.Estimates are that we spend over $15,000 per year to house eachinmate in a correctional institution. This amount exceeds thecost of education for one year at either Harvard or YaleUniversities. In fact, this country spends about two and one-half times as much to keep a person incarcerated as it would tosend that person to college. Mr. Chairman, if we as a nationcontinue to fail to invest in dropout prevention, we will pay an

4 0

36

2.

even greater price in unemployment, welfare escistauce,incarceration, and lost taxes and productivity. All thesefactors have an adverse impact on our economy and the spirit ofthe nation as a whole.

Identifying Potential School Dropouts

Mr. Chairman, I am COD Inced there are definite ways toidentify a potential dropout -- the signs are there. In a givenschool week, educators spend more waking hours with children thando the parents of those youngsters. As a result, very often itis the educator who becomes aware that a child is havingdifficulty coping with a problem or is unhappy in the schoolenvironment. A dedicated educator develops the ability over timeto sense when a child is at risk. In fact, potential dropoutscan often be identified by the time they reach the third grade;some even upon entering school. Some definite predictorsinclude: poor attendance, tardiness, truancy, residual effectsfrom health and family problems, poor academic progress, and lackof social and emotional developmen.:. Although this list io notexhaustive, it includes those areas that should serve asindicators that a child is at risk of dropping out.

Mr. Chairman, your efforts to call attention to the schooldropout problem and expand the education reform movement toinclude at risk children is well documented. On February 28,1985, you and other Members of the House and Senate convened aconference on school dropouts here on Capitol Hill. NEA waspleased to participate in that gathering of educators,researchers, practitioners, theorists, and programadministrators. Conference participants were called together todiscuss (1) who is dropping out of school; (2) why students dropout; (3) what succeesful dropout programs exist; and (4)recommendations for legislative proposals. A summary ofconference findings on the reasons youngsters school beforegraduation include the following: gang violr'oq 6u;pension fromschool; teenage pregancy; alienation from pe 1 fae, 'qachers;early marriage; scholastic failure; economic -tv.tion; lack ofeducational resources; poor school experience:0 ' parentallimits on school attendance to do household duties.

The Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act

The nropout Prevention and Reentry Act is designed toaddress two major areas: the development of more comprehensivedata on the school dropout problem and the lack of programmatic

.

solutions. The bill would direct the Secretary of Education toconduct a national study of the extent and nature of the problem,develop a standard definition of dropout, and determine factorscontributing to the current dropout situation. Demonstrationgrants would be awarded for programs designed to (1) locatedropouts and develop ways of drawing them back into the schoolsystem; (2) identify potential dropouts by recognizing ''earlywarning signs'', (3) explore the reasons why students leaveschool and how counseling and remedial help keep them in school;(4) offer alternative educational opportunities, includingvocational training; and (5) establieh ways of sharinginformation on how to prevent dropping out. DTLA believesenactment of this legislation would move the nation one giantstep forward in providing all students equality of opportunity toachieve their measure of excellence.

The School Encellence and Reform Act

The education reform movement is mushrooming throughout thecountry in ways we im the education field could not haveimagined. Local school districts, parents, and communities areacknowledging their interdependence and forming creativealliances to promote their mutual goals. The commitment and

41

37

3.

creativity we see firsthand are commendable. We are also seeingrenewed Congressional commitment to education reform andexcellence. Your commitment, Mr. Chairman, to expand theexcellence and reform movement to include at risk students islaudable. The legislation you introduced last year entitled theSchool Excellence and Reform Act of 1985 (H.R. 2840) wouldaddress the needs of at risk children in very important ways.SERA would target aid to meet the needs of historically unservedand underserved students -- aid for such programs as dropoutprevention, early childhood education, school day care, inserviceteacher training, effective schools, and secondary basic skills.UTLA believes it is critical that this legislation also beenacted.

NEA Efforts to Prevent School Dropout -- Operation Rescue

Mr. Chairman, NEA believes that we as educators have aspecial mandate to lead the search for answers to the problem ofschool dropouts. This burden of responsibility led NEA to act onits commitment to take definitive steps to prevent schooldropout. During our 1985 annual convention, NEA President MaryFutrell asked the 7,500 delegates to support initiatives thatwould launch a national campaign to combat the school dropout andilliteracy problem. NEA delegates enthusiastically approved theplan and Operation Rescue is now being implemented. Under theproject, NEA has earmarked $1.7 million -- a dollar for each ofits members -- for educational excellence projects designed byNEA members in their own communities.

Operation Rescue is being coordinated by the NationalFoundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE), a charitabletax-exempt foundation created by NEA in 1969. Beginning with the1986-87 school year, NEA -- through NFIE -- will provide up to$700,000 to fund outstanding locally developed school dropoutprevention projects. The remaining $1 million will be investedto become a permanent funding source for future educationinitiatives. Through Operation Rescue, NEA hopes to help cut thedropout rate in half by 1990.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, NEA believes there are no throw-away students-- no expendable young people. The mission of the public schoolsis to accommodate the needs of all students. We believe furtherthat the education reform movement must be expanded to includeall students -- not only the gifted and talented or affluent, butthose at risk, including the handicapped. We must not allowthese students to continue to slip through the cracks of despairand failure by our shortsightedness and insensitivity to theirspecial needs. While education is the centerpiece of nationalfocus, we have the perfect environment in which to rescue theseyoungsters. Enactment of the Dropout Prevention and Reentry Actis essential to national efforts to stem the tide of students wbodrop out of our schooli and later the society.

38

Chr'rman HAWKINS. The next and final witness is Mr. GeorgeMunoz, president of the Board of Education, Chicago PublicSchools.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE MUNOZ, PRESIDENT, BOARD OFEDUCATION, CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Mr. MUNOZ. Thank you, Chairman Hawkins.Mr. Che.irman, my name is George Munoz, and I am the presi-

dent of the Chicago Board of Education.I testify today on behalf of not only my own city school system,

but also for the Council of Great City Schools.I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify before this impor-

tant subcommittee in support of the Dropout Prevention and Re-entry Act, H.R. 3042.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to submit a formal statementand have it entered in the record in its entirety.

Mr. HAWKINS. Without objection, so ordered.Mr. MUNOZ. I'd like to then review that statement, and point out

some of its highlights, and make comments as I go.Mr. Chairman, I would like to lend our strongest possible en-

dorsement to H.R. 3042 and to devote my testimony this morningto discussing the dimensions of the dropout problem in our city, de-scribing what we're trying to do, and indicating why we think thislegislation is needed.

The dropout problem in the 430,000 student Chicago PublicSchool System has received significant national attention in thepast several years in both the news media and in various commun.-ty forums.

As a result of this concern, the Chicago schools participated in amajor study of its dropouts conducted by the Chicago Panel onPublic School Finances. The study, "Dropouts From the ChicagoPublic Schools," is one of the most thorough and comprehensiveanalyses of school dropouts found anywhere in the Nation.

It presents to the citizens of Chicago and to our school systemsome of the stiffest challenges we have ever faced.

Among the major findings of the study were that, over a 4-yearperiod, 43 percent of our high school students left school and didnot transfer to any other educational program. This means thatonly 57 percent of our entering freshmen actually graduate.

The dropout rate for Hispanics is 47 percent; blacks, 45 percent;whites, 35; and Asians, 19.

More importantly, however, the panel's study found that regard-less of race and sex students were most likely to drop out if theyentered the ninth grade overage or underachieving.

The extent of poverty among students proved to be important,but only to the extent that it led to low achievement and retentionin grades.

I'd like to also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the prediction ofdropouts had been made, several years back, by Peter Drucker,when he said that those cities where there is no community pres-sure, there will be dropout, physical dropout of the student.

In the suburban areas, where the middle class students go, whilethey might not drop out, they will be mental dropouts.

43

39

The school systems need to address this problem throughout thecountry, not only in the large urban centers. But our studies haveshown that regardless of race, or sex, and even poverty situations,that the problem is widespread.

It is our job as school officials to overcome the barriers of povertyand joblessness, to motivate students, and to promote, to promisesuccess at the end of our road, no matter the external forces. Andthese forces include the school, the community, the family, theeconomy, the private sector, the churches, and others. Our chal-lenge is to broker these forces within the school setting, for it iswithin the schools that our best hope rests for a solution.

The Chicago Public School System has initiated a variety of pro-grams to turn the corner on the dropout problem, as well as re-trieve some of the youth who have already left school.

Most of our efforts involve remedial education, counseling, jobtraining, and work experience. My prepared statement describessome of these.

The Chicago programs include, for example, a summer program.Last year, even though our money was tight, Chicago introduced

a free Summer School Program. If the student was failing morethan one course, the student could go to school for free.

The prediction among many was that if a student was alreadyfalling behind it was not likely that they would give up their freesummer to go back to summer school. In fact, the reverse was true.We had close to 50,000 students that gave up their summer, stu-dents that were falling behind during the regular year, were will-ing to come back to school to see if they could make a difference.

This year, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we're intro-ducing a similar summer program, where we expect 65,000 stu-dents to take advantage of the summer program.

One major difficulty facing the Chicago School System and othercity systems is the inability to reach all the students in need ofservices. Even at the sites of these varied programs, many studentsat risk of dropping out remain unserved.

Clearly, the board is attempting to implement numerous inter-vention strategies to prevent school dropouts and to retrieve thosewho have already been lost.

Pinpointing the most productive interventions among existingand potential strategies is the other major challenge facing theschools.

These experiences in Chicago are similar to those in other greatcities. The graduation rate in New York City is only 56.4 over 4years. The graduation rate in Boston is only 52 percent, and insome parts of Detroit may be as low as 33.5 percent.

The NCES indicates that urban school students are 60 percentmore likely to drop out than suburban students, and 48 percentmore likely to drop out than rural students, although AmericanIndian and some mipant students also have extremely high drop-out rates.

Cities across the country are trying a range of programs to ad-dress the issue. Pittsburgh is using mentor programs, peer tutor-ing, and counseling. Detroit is experimenting with alternativeschools and part-time employment. Columbus is working with ex-tended school day programs and peer self-help efforts, involving

4 4

40

students going to school in the morning in pairs to ensure eachother's attendance. Dallas is attempting night classes, bilingualcounseling, enhanced parental involvement, vocational-technicalcourses, and community volunteer.

The Council of Great City Schools will be publishing a report thisfall on the range of dropout prevention and reentry programs in itscity districts.

One of our major problems nationwide, as in Chicago, at thispoint, is that we have little comprehensive data on which, if any, ofthese program strategies work and work for which kids.

This brings me to the legislation before us today, the DropoutPrevention and Reentry Act, H.R. 3042.

Mr. Chairman, let me address, for a moment, why I think thislegislation is necessary. While our city of Chicago is making ourown efforts to reduce dropouts, scores of other cities are workingindependently and piecemeal on their own aspects of the problem.

Because definitional problems, incompatible data, and program-matic efforts are so unbelievably different from school system toschool system, we have no way of knowing whether our efforts areany more or less effective than anywhere else.

This situation would mean little more than another local levelfrustration except for the fact that the extent of dropouts has nowbecome a national problem.

NCES indicates that nearly 27 percent of all our ninth graders,as a nation, fail to obtain their high school diploma.

The importance of addressing the dropout problem, Mr. Chair-man and members of the committee, is serious enough that I wouldsay that if we don't address it the society in this country might re-semble those in other parts of the world.

If you go down south, areas of Latin America have become accus-tomed to a two-tier system. They've become accustomed to having aclass that is not well educated, a class that does not participate fi-nancially or productively to their society as a whole. That systemof government has adapted itself to that.

The question we want to address is, do we also want to resemblethat part of the world, as well as other parts of the world wherethe majority of their population is left outside and there is finan-cial as well as political disability?

The $50 million authorized by H.R. 3042 seems like a modest in-vestment indeed. The bill would provide for competitive matchinggrants to LEA's, largely in big cities, where the problem is mostevident, and would allow enough flexibility for districts to designtheir own programs.

Grantees would have to report results within 3 years and accord-ing to common statistics. This would enable the Department ofEducation to report to Congress and to other LEA's about what ap-peared to work in reducing dropouts. This would be an invaluablecontribution to schools nationwide and well within the FederalGovernment's traditional role in education vis-a-vis disadvantagedstudents, research, and information dissemination.

To these ends, we strongly urge the committee to approve thisnew bill.

Our schools cannot continue to work piecemeal on this problemwithout the coordinating hand of the Federal Government.

45

41

If our Nation's factories worked at only 60-percent capacity, wewould sound a national alarm. Our schools deserve no less concern,for every student day lost is a blow to our productivity andstrength as a nation.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Con-gressman Hayes in this area of dropout prevention. CongressmanHayes has taken his discussion with General Superintendent Man-ferd Byrd and myself on the nature of the school dropout problemand developed a national legislative initiative which appears to begenerating increasing national attention.

I would like to thank the subcommittee and the bill's cosponsorsfor their concern.

Thank you.Chairman HAWKINS. Well, thank you, Mr. Munoz.[The prepa,-ed statement of George Munoz followsl

42

Testimony

on

The Dropout Prevention and ReEntry Act (H.R. 3042)

before the

Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education

of the

Committee on Education and Labor

U.S. House of Representatives

Presented by

George Munoz, PresidentChicago Board of Education

on behalf of

The Council of The Great City Schools

Washington, D.C.

May 20, 1986

43

Testimony on The Dropout Prevention and ReEntry Act (H.R. 3042)Presented by

George Munoz, President, Chicago Board of Educationon behalf of

The Council of The Great City Schools

Mr. Chairman, my name is George Munoz and I am President of The Chicago

Board of Education. I testify today on behalf of not only my own city school sys-

tem but also for The Council of The Great City Schools. I am pleased to have this

opportunity to testify before this important Subcommittee in support of The Dropout

Prevention and ReEntry Act (H.R. 3042).

As the Chairman knows, The Council of The Great City Schools is an

organization comprised of 37 of the nation's largest urban public school systems, of

which Chicago is the third largest. On the Council's Board sit the superintendent

and one board of education member from each district, making the organization the

only national group so constituted and the only education group whose membership and

purpose is solely urban.

The Council's membership serves about 4.5 million youngsters, or about

12% of the nation's public school enrollment. Our 37 member school systems educate

approximately 32% of the nation's Black children, 20% of the Hispanic children and

21% of our Asian-origin children. Almost one-third of our children live in fami-

lies receiving public assistance.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to lend our strongest possible endorsement

to H.R. 3042 and to devote my testimony this morning to discussing the dimensions

of the dropout problem in our city, describing what we are trying 'o about it,

and indicating why we think this new legislation is needed.

The dropout problem in the 430,000-student Chicago Fuhli- School System

has received significant national attention in the past several years in both the

44

news media and in various community forums. As a result of this concern the

Chi:ago Schools participated in a major study of its dropouts conducted by the

Chicago Panel on Public School Finances. The study, Dropouts From The Chicago

Public Schools, is one of the most thorough and comprehensive analyses of school

dropouts found anywhere in the nation. It presents to the citizens of Chicago

and to our school system some of the stiffest challenges we have ever faced.

Among the major findings of the study were that over a four-year period,

43% of our high school students left school and did not transfer to any other

educational program. This meant that only 57% of our entering freshman actually

graduate. The dropout rate for Hispanics is 47%; Blacks, 45%; Whites, 35%; and

Asians, 19%. Hispanic and Black males have the highest dropout rates of 54% and

53% respectively.

More importantly, however, the panel's study found that regardless of

race and sex, students were most likely to dropout if they entered the ninth grade

overage or underachieving. The extent of poverty among students proved to be

important but only to the extent that it led to low achievement and retention in

grade.

The extent of poverty in our city, as the Chairman may know, is almost

unbelievable. Over 90% of our students meet the low-income criteria for a free

or reduced-price lunch. The combined population of our city's public housing

projects would constitute by itself of the second largest city in the state. In

one of our largest public housing projects with over 10,000 residents there are

only 154 fathers living with their children. The unemployment ratein some sections

of the city exceeds 70%.

Such conditions of poverty and joblessness crush the spirits of many cf

our young people. Many suffer fatalism about the meaning of educationor doubt that

4 9

45

their efforts will ever lead to a job or career. Positive role models become hard

to find.

Nonetheless, it is our job as school officials to overcome these bar-

riers, to motivate students and to promise success at the end of our road--no

matter the external forces. And these forces include the schools, the community,

the family, the economy, the private sector, the churches and others. Our chal-

lenge is to broker these forces within the school setting, for it is within the

schools that our best hope rests for a solution.

The Chicago Public School System has initiated a variety of programs to

turn the corner on the dropout problem as well as retrieve some of the youth who

have already left school. Most of our efforts involve remedial education, coun-

seling, job training and work experience.

Some intervention efforts focus on 14- and 15 year-olds at risk of

dropping out and provide these students with work experience in conjunction with

their high school curriculum. To retain high risk seniors in the final year of

high school, a Pre-Employment Program is being operated in ten schools to demon-

strate the link between education and work in this pivotal transitional period.

Another ten dropout prevention sites have been proposed by the Mayor's office to

target freshman and sophomore students. A three-pronged ihitiative was begun this

"ear. In 12 school sites, a Cooperative Learning and Counseling Program provides

remediation and counseling for children at risk. The School-Community Attendance

Improvement Program involves a strategy which focuses on the family. Parents are

being trained to monitor and assist their children with homework and to reinforce

and support their children's school experience with the assistance of a school

attendalce specialist at each of 18 sites. I understand that this effort is some-

what sivilar to the Even Start legislation now pending before this Committee. Four

new ReEntry and Retrieval Programs have been launched this year, as well.

46

These Reentry and Retrieval efforts attempt to reach out to students

who have already dropped out. They are similar to the "Early Leavers Program"

operating at two high schools, which identifies potential dropouts and enrolls

them in an intensive progrwri of remedial education and job training. The goal of

the program is to have the early leaver re-enter high school, complete the G.E.O. or

secure a job. A similar program is operated on-site in tw,-, Chicago Housing Authority

projects.

Additionally, a survey has just been completed of all Chicago High Schools

to determine what 4chool level initiatives are underw. y. Though not yet tabulated,

the raw survey data seem to indicate that many of the high schools have their own

programs to combat school dropouts. Some involve one or two teachers in a remedial

program, some involve peer tutoring, some involve special counseling and others

involve school-initiated work experience.

Finally, Chicago's summer programs offer a variety of opportunities for

students to progress in their own educational programs or to make up any failures

which they have experienced. Some programs focus on potential August-graduating

seniors. Other programs offer lite afternoon instruction for students who must work

during the summers. A major peer tutoring program is also provided.

One major difficulty facing the Chicago School System and other city

systems is the inability to reach all thi students in need of services. Even at the

sites of these varied programs, many students at risk of dropping out remain un-

served. Clearly, the Board is attempting to implement numerous intervention strate-

gies to prevent school dropouts and retrieve those who have already been lost.

Pinpointing the most productive interventions among existing and potential strate-

gies is the other major challenge facing the schools.

47

These experiences in Chicago are similar to those in other Great Cities.

The graduation rate in New York City is only 56.4 ". over four years. The graduation

rate in Boston is only 52% and in some parts of Detroit may be as low as 33.5%. The

NCES indicates th.. urban school students are 60% more likely to drop out than

suburban students and 48% more likely to dropout than rural students, although

American Indian and some migrant students also have extremely high dropout rates.

Cities across the country are trying a range of programs to address this

issue. Pittsburgh is using mentor programs, peer tutoring and counseling. Detroit

is experimenting with alternative schools and part-time employment. Columbus is

working with utended school day programs and peer "self-help" efforts, involving

students goine to school in the morning in pairs to ensure each other's attendance.

Dallas is attemptinp night classes, bilingual counseling, enhanced parental in-

volvement, voc-tech courses and community volunteers. The Council of Great City

Schools will be publishing a report this Fall on the range of dropout prevention

and re-entry programs in its city districts.

One of our major problems nationwide, as in Chicago, at this point is that

we have little comprehensive data on which, if any, of these program strategies work--

and work for which kids. This brings me to the legislation before this body, the

Dropout Prevention and ReEntry Act (H.R. 3042).

Mr. Chairman, let me address for a moment why I think this legislation is

necessary. While our city of Chicago is making our own efforts to reduce dropouts,

scores of other cities are working independently and piecemeal on tneir own aspects

of the problem. Because definitional problems, incompatible data and programmatic

efforts are so unbelievably different from school system to school system, we have

no way of knowing whether our efforts are any more or less effective than anywhere

else. This situation would mean little more than another local level frustration

except for the fact that the extent of dropouts has now become a national problem.

48

6

NCES indicates that nearly 27% of all our ninth graders--as a nation--fail to obtain

their high school diploma.

In our city alone The Chicago Panel estimates that the aggregate life-

time costs to society of the 12,804 dropouts from the Chicago class of 1982 are

$451 million in lost taxes, welfare costs and the losses and costs of crime. These

lost lifetime earnings represent a loss to the economy of the city of Chicago over

45 years of $1.8 hillion. Of this amount, approximately $278 million of it would be

lost in federal income taxes and $49 million in state income taxes. The Chicago

Panel estimates that school dropouts cost the taxpayer $12.49 for every $1.00 of

additional resources needed to address the problem. One dollar spent now on drop-

out prevention stands to save the taxpayer $12 in other costs in the future.

The fifty million dollars authorized by H.R. 3042 seems like a modest

investment indeed. The bill would provide for competitive matching grants to LEAs

largely in big cities where the problem is most evident and would allow enough

flexibility for districts to design their own programs. Grantees would have to re-

port results within three years and according to common statistics. This would

enable the Department of Education to report to Congress and to other LEAs about

what appeared to work in reducing dropouts. would be an invaluable contri-

bution to schools nationwide and well within LSe federal government's traditional

role in education vis-a-vis disadvantaged studedts, research and information dis-

semination.

To these ends, we strongly urge the Committee to approve this new bill.

Our schools cannot continue to work piecemeal on this problem without the coordinating

hand of the federal government. If our nation's factories worked at only 60% capacity,

we would sound a national alarm. Our schools deserve no less concern, for every

student-day lost is a blow to our productivity and strength as a nation.

49

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of our Congressman

Hayes in this area of dropout prevention. Congressman Hayes has taken his dis-

cussions with General Superintendent Hanford Byrd and myself on the hature of the

school dropout problem and developed a national legislative initiative which ap-

pears to be generating increasing national attention. I would like to thank the Sub-

committee and the bill's cosponsors for their concern.

5 4

50

Chairman HAWKINS. The chair would like to inform you that wehave scheduled a hearing out in Chicago, June 23, as a result ofMr. Hayes' insistence for a field hearing.

It may be possible that I may, in turn, persuade him to continueall the way to the coast and complete the hearing in Los Angeles.But regardless of that, I thought you would be interested to knowthat as a result of his efforts we are contemplating field hearings.

As you well pointed out in your statement, there are a variety ofprograms now being operated. What seems to be happening is thatthis piecemeal approach is leading to a lot of frustration, becausetoo many districts are reinventing the wheel and not being guidedby a national pattern that might be developed through H.R. 3042.

Do you know of any efforts that are being made by the Depart-ment of Education to coordinate any of these experimental pro-grams? Do you think that the Department of Education has someresponsibility, even under current conditions, to at least providesome technical assistance rnd to focus on what may be happeningin this field?

In other words, is there any present role that the Department ofEducation is playing? Is it necessary that H.R. 3042 be enacted inorder to give them some specific role?

Mr. MUNOZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I believe that the Depart-ment of Education, as well as the administration, put a teaser (mitwhen it did do the national A Nation At Risk study, and basicallyfocused attention on how the public schools were doing.

I think that was a job that needed to be done. And the Echoolsystems basically responded by, in fact, addressing their problem aswe did in Chicago.

The problem now is that we need some direct guidance as well asassistance in attacking this national problem. And I don't believethat that has as yet come out.

We have had already the same thing that occurred several yearsago, that is, that there seems to be a problem with out public edu-cational performance. And that's where it was left.

I would encourage that this bill be passed because it does takethat step forward in thein trying to address this national proe-lem.

There is lipservice being paid that education is a public good,much like national defense. But unlike national defense thereseems to be no direct involvement to make sure that, in fact, thepublic good is delivered. Rather, at this point, there seems still tobe a concentration on the criticism of performance as opp3sed togetting in to resolution.

And I believe that this bill takes that first, very necessary step incoordinating efforts, as well as giving assistance in data gathering,and giving some definitional--

Chairman HAWKINS. Well, Ms. Haywood, in your statement, youreferred to the program of the NEA called Operation Rescue. And Iwish, certainly, to commend 0:.e NEA for having taken this step.

Now, this program, as I understand it, has been in operation forseveral years.

Could you share with the committee any results that have beenobtained or any recommendations that ha-re come out of thatproject?

5 5

51

MS. HAYWOOD. Well, the National Education Association's alwaysbeen concerned about the students at risk.

Chairman HAWKINS. I wonder if you would pull th microphonea little closer to you, please.

MS. HAYWOOD. Operation Rescue is a new program. It was justenacted and voted upon by the NEA delegates last summer.

The first portion of the implementation of Operation Rescue willtake place this September. Teachers in local communities and localschool districts were able to write a grant.

And in Los Angeles we do have one grant that's been submitted.And it would have to be funded and would have to be approved. Wewon't know the information as to how those grants will work untilat the end of the 1986-87 school year.

I'd like to follow up on something that Mr. Munoz said. In termsof the Operation Rescue, one way to get out to the public and getout to our teachers that the program was in existence, that therewere four informational exchanges that were held around thecountryand I coordinated the one that was held in Los Angeles.In contacting individuals to attend and in contacting individualswho had existing programs, I found out that people had never hadthe opportunity, really, on this issue, ty come together, to pull to-gether, to know what the others were doing. And people came justto know what was going on.

We have all kinds of groups that get together for all kinds ofcauses, but dropouts is not one of the educational issues that we'vehad this coming together.

So, I think that H.R. 3042 is really important in that aspect be-cause it will provide that defmition, and it will also give us the in-formation we really need to know about exemplary programs.

But we will know more about Operation Rescue at the end of the1986-87 school year.

Chairman HAWKINS. Well, thank you.Mr. Gainer, I wanted to express appreciation of the subcommit-

tee for the cooperation which you have given us in terms of thedata that you have already accumulated.

You did make reference to a continuation study. I wasn't so sureof the present status of that additional study, which you're going tomake at the request of the subcommittee.

You had indicated that the study would concentrate on whatworks. Does that mean that you will be identifying programsthroughout the country, in various local school districts,--

Mr. GAINER. Yes, sir. That's what we intend to do.Chairman HAWKINS [continuing]. That will serve as models that

might be replicated? Is that the intent?Mr. GAINER. I think the idea is that if this bill passes it will be

some time before demonstration projects can be put in place. Andover the next 6 to 9 months, we'll de some field work to get a sensefor what's going on out there.

Because most of the projects don't have research designs withthem now, we won't be able to say anythiag definitive about rela-tive effectiveness. But I think we can isolate characteristics of goodprograms and characterize what's going on in the country today,and maybe point in the direction of some things that might bear

52

some particular attention in terms of data collection and kinds ofinterventions it: the demonstration projects.

Chairman HAWKINS. I ti,ink that study will be extremely usefulto this subcomreittee. And I certainly want to encourage its devel-opment as soon as i.ossible.

Have you any :dea when that study v411 be completed?Mr. GAINER. Well, we're going to provide some written documen-

tation on the reseals:1i we've done so far probably durhig the nextmonth. We'll be issuing vyllat we call a briefing report to the sub-committee.

After that, we're going to ge into what we call scoping and plan-ning, and put together a research design for that field study.

I nope tha_ we'll be able to start C.,e field study early in the nextacademic year.

Chairman HAWKINS. It any of the oth..r witnesses would like torespond, I certainly would encourag...- them to respond to this ques-tion:

The point has been raised this morn , as to what works. Theevidence seems to indicate that, after many years of experimenta-tion, pilot programs, and different legislation which might addressthis problem, we seem to he no further ah.,ad than we were 10years ago.

This committee, for example, has experimented with quite anumber of employment programs that did address the problem ofproviding preemployment assistance to potential dropouts andtrying to encourage young people who had dropped out to go backto school.

That program, the work incentive program, was started in 1977.We experimented with various programs.

We did make recommendations, and apparently nobody paidmuch attention to that, although I think the evaluations were rea-sonably good.

Mr. GAINER. Yes, they were.Chairman HAWKINS. With respect to the Hispanic dropout, for

example, we have had various legislative initiatives in bilingualeducation to address that problem, based on the obvious fact that ifa child in school (sloes not even know what's being said or what'sgoing on, that child has no incentive to stay in school. And, so, wehave, in effect, identified some of the problem with a partial solu-tion in the field of bilingual education.

But that seems to be not even recognized today. And under theJob Training Partnership Act, when that bill was in this commit-tee, we earmarked 40 percent of the funds to be provided to youngpeople to be trained and to identify their potential dropout possi-bilities. And yet most of that moneya lot of that money is noteven being expended to do this.

So, when the question is raised, what works, is it true that itisn't always lack of knowl(edge as to what works, but it's the politi-cal opposition to programs, it's the budget cuts, and msnv otherthings that seem to prevent us from doing some ot the things wealready know can at least offer some type of solution?

Will the study that you're going to do address whether or notsome of these programs that have already been proved to be rea-

5 7

53

sonably effective deserve to be continued or to be reevaluated as totheir relevance to this problem?

Mr. GAINER. Mr. Chairman, I think we could do that, although Ithink two very good studies have been done recently which giveyou a good summary of programs that have been attempted foryouth.

I think there's always a quandry when you turn over a wealth ofliterature and past program attempts by practitioners to a bunchof evaluators and ask them what worked. They tend to be overlycritical of the research design and sometimes focus on that morethan they do on the programs themselves.

I don't think that we want to leave anybody with the impressionthat many of the programs that have been tried over the yearshave been failures.

I certainly didn't mean to say that. I think some of the programshave been shown to be very effective in certain ways.

The point I was making, though, is that for programs aimed di-rectly at dropouts and at their reentry, intervening for this par-ticular kind of youth, the evaluation designs, the kind of studiesthat have been done, and the data that have been collected doesn'tgive us too much in the way of good answers about dropouts in par-ticular.

That's not to reflect on other programs that have been tried. It'smore a statement on the research design than it is on the effective-ness of the programs in the past.

Chairman HAWKINS. Well, maybe I ought to address the questionto some of the other witnesses, because I know that your agencydoesn't like to get into policy questions.

Mr. GMNER. We try not to.Chairman HAWKINS. But I think it's been evident, this morning,

that young people who fall several grades behind are ones amongthose most likely to drop out.

Mr. GAINER. That's clearly the case.Chairman ETAWKINS. Yes.And yet we know that Head Start for example preschool educa-

tion, does have a good evaluation in that those who go throughHead Start are the ones not likely to be falling behind, unless theyare later handicapped because they don't get compensatory educa-tion, Follow Through or what not.

Mr. GAINER. Yes.Chairman HAWKINS. And yet we know that the Head Start pro-

gram, which would help to prevent the dropout, reaches only 18percent of those who are eligible.

So, consequently, what we are doing is failing to expose 82 per-.cent of the children to a program to help them out, one that weknow works. And yet we have an almost impossible job of trying toeven maintain the 18 percent level of those that are now beingreached.

Are we, therefore, not even attempting to do the job that needsto be done in a way that is cost effective? And is this a politicalrather than an educational problem?

Ms. HAYWOOD. Well, I think it's probably both a political andeducational problem.

53

54

I think, as we cut back on Head Start Programs and reduce theamount of funding, the programs also lose theirthey also losetheir effectiveness.

I think, in terms of education, one of the things thatthat teach-ersI, as a teacher, have had to look at, the last couple of years, isthe changingthe societal changes, the changes that impact, thatimpact my teaching, the changes that are necessary, that teachersneed to have more in-service training to keep up with the changingdemands of society.

I think we cannot continue to cut back on programs that havebeen effective. And we also have to improve that quality of teach-ing that's out there, to make sure that our teachers have thosekinds of materials and the skills necessary to keep up with a diver-gent population.

This is a very heterogeneous group of students out there now,much more so than it was when I started teaching, 22 years ago.

Mr. MUNOZ. Mr. Chairman, I'mwith respect to that question, Iagree that programs that have shown to work, in fact, are not fullyfunded.

We in Chicago have a waiting list for our Head Start Program,and there's just not enough space or funds available to have every-body benefit from that.

I believe that there are several ways to make sure that ourschools perform to our expectations, and that Head Start is oneprogram, and there will probably be others.

But what is different today than 5 or 10 years ago, or 20 yearsago, when Head Start and other programs were being looked at bythis subcommittee, and many other programs, is that, today, thefocus is a national focus on just the dropping out, the performanceof the schools.

And I think, with this new view toward things, everythingshould be given a fair shot of analysis as well as appropriate fund-Lag to Eke how it works or not.

If we look at things in isolation, then what we'll see then is agive-up mentality.

Take, for example, bilingual education. In our school system, thehighest attended classes by Hispanics that take bilingual educationare those bilingual classes.

We can predict that a bilingual student will attend the bilingualclasses and probably skip the monolingual, in English, otherclasses.

Why is that? Because there's a lack of relationship, we believe,in the monolingual classes.

And so, from our perspectivefrom my perspective, I say that bi-lingual classes motivates attendance and at least they are there.

But when you look at bilingual classes in isolation in a schoolsystem, and determine that the dropout rate among Hispanics inChicago is 47 percent, which is the Mghest, higher than lalacks inChicago, then one could easily conclude, wrongly so, that the bilin-gual education program doesn't work in Chicago.

And I think that that puts too much burden in one program tosolve all of the problems.

But when you couple bilingual and Head Start and some of theseother programs that might work, the reentry program, the counsel-

53

55

ing, if you put them all together, and then you ask the question,what other programs are needed to supplement bilingual educa-tion, I think that kind of attitude will be of great service to us.

And it's unfortunate that the schools and the studies surround-ing the performance of the schools have basically been dormant.

With all due respect, I am sure this committee has labored. Iknow, Mr. Hawkins, yourself, have labored continuously for theeducation of our populace.

However, there are very few people like yourselves and membersof this committee that have concerned themselves, over the dec-ades, as strongly as this area needs attention.

And I think people were suspecting that someone was takingcare of the situation. Society went through a change. This countryhas gone through a change. It has entered another era. And, bath-cally, we have to pick up the schools and bring them up to snuffwith a postive attitude, not an attitude of, show me one program,Head Start, in isolation, and then show me whether that schoolsystem has succeeded or not succeeding, and, if not, then HeadStart is not good, or bilingual is no good.

I think that we deserve a fresh start. The nation-at-risk typementality, if we are to do it service, requires this kind of thing, theGAO study, and others.

Chairman HAWKINS. Thank you.Mr. Hayes.Mr. GAINER. Mr. Hawkins, if I might.Chairman HAWKINS. Yes.Mr. GAINER. I think I do have something to say on that. And it's

hopefully not political or too policy oriented.I think we tend to look at the interventions for dropouts, and

worry about whether or not those interventions work. And, in fact,some of them are very successful. Some, however, provide verylittle money to individual students, and you couldn't expect thosekind of interventions to work. Some are clearly ineffective.

But if you want to look at where the problem really is, the schooldistricts in the country spend a huge amount of money on educa-tion, whereas the Federal Government spends only a few billiondollars.

Head Start and Chapter 1 have been shown to be very effectiveprograms. They intervene and they bring about substantial gainsin achievement for the students that they intervene for.

However, they intervene at one or two limited intervals in a per-son's education, whereas the educational system intervenes for 12years.

If it works very well, it works. When it doesn't work, it's veryhard for Federal intervention to overcome the shortcomings of thissystem in its entirety.

I think you could say that, as a society, we're failing a large per-cent of our youth, particular minority, particularly inner cityyouth. We're failing a large percentage of them. And the interven-tions that we look to, the primary interventions, the school sys-tems, are not doing their job, and it's very hard for the FederalGovernment to intervene on their behalf, at least with the kind offunding that we have today.

Chairman HAWKINS. Thank you.

6 0

56

Mr. Hayes.Mr. HAYES. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I guess I can just as well start with you, Mr. Gainer.Mr. GAINER. Yes; I don't know whether I like the sound of that.Mr. HAYES. I want to acknowledge that certainly your prepared

statement has been very helpful in doing what you said at theoutset you hoped to do.

You say you are here today to assist us in our deliberations onH.R. 3042. And obviously the statistics and data that you have em-bodied in that statement does help in that direction.

I'm not prepared to excuse you, as I think our chairman hasdone, when it comes to the matter of policy.

While the General Accounting Office may not make policy, andyou as the Associate Director of the Human Resources Division ofthat Accounting Office certainly have a lot to do with influencingpolicy.

You'll agree with that won't you?Mr. GAINER. Sometimes.Mr. HAYES. OK. All right.The thing that does arise in my mind, is it actually a matter of

policy whether or not the General Accounting Office can saywhether or not they see some value in 3042 or not? Is that beyondthe realm or scope of your operation?

Mr. GAINER. Certainly not.Mr. HAYES. WellI'd like to know your reaction.You've pointed out the problem. You understand it very well.

Your statistics support it.Do you think that 3042 could be at least a step in the direction of

correcting this wrong?Mr. GAINER. I certainly think that the bill addresses the ele-

ments of the problem as I understand it.First of all, we have difficulty looking at the research as it

stands, being unable to say how you should intervene for people.I think the literature gives us a good idea of who you have to

intervene for and who suffers the most if they don't receive a goodeducation. But it doesn't tell us, I don't believe, where we shouldintervene, with what kind of interventions.

Mr. HAYES. Uh-huh.Mr. GAINER. Now, I think your bill could very likely form a vehi-

cle for discovering interventions which are likely to be successful.So, I think it's appropriate to that lack of knowledge.I also think that it would be useful to local school districts, to

state education agencies, and to the Congress in terms of oversightto get uniform statistics collected at the local level or to use a con-sistent methodology.

The one note of caution I put here is that I don't think localscAool districts can ever give you a definitive measure of the drop-out problem, because you have to go to students on a sample basis,as these national surveys, the NLS and CPS, do, to get a goodmeasure of the problem.

But good definitions and a good consistent definition at the locallevel would help every.oody.

6 1

57

So, in that sense, the bill goes right to the heart of some of theprobler

SO, SIthough we're in no poistion to comment on whether thismoney should be spent here versus some other place, that's a Con-gressional decision, I think we can say that the elements of the billseem to be aimed at specific problems related to dropouts.

One other thing I would say is that this kind of expression of na-tional concern about this problem might have a lot of leverage atthe local level, where the responsibility for dealing with the drop-out problem really lies.

Mr. HAYES. One of theyou will agree, though, that one of the, Iguess, most natural assets that this Nation can have in terms of itsown security may very well rest in what we do about educating ouryouth? Is that right?

Mr. GAINER. I think the cost of failure in the educational system,just as Mr. Munoz pointed out, may be a permanent underclass; itmay be a work force that cannot respond to the technological ad-vances that are takii4; place, cannot respond to the shift from anindustrial nation to a service and information age. And if you lookat it just from the point of view of the calculus in the employmentarea, it's a problem we face. And if we don't educate youth today,we'll continue to have to import workers from other countries inorder to

Mr. HAYES. It costs more to keep an inmate in prison than itdoes to send them to school, is that right?

Mr. GAINER. I've read that number many times. Fm sure it'strue.

Mr. HAYES. All right.Well, Ms. Haywood, I was interested in yourin that part of

your statement where you spell out certain early warning signs ofpotential dropout students.

You're a first grade teacher I believe. You said you could detectit even at that early stage?

Ms. HAywoon. You really can. You can see students walk inyour classroomor I could see students. And I kind of validatedmy theory by talking to one g our members who's a kindergartenteacher. He said that he could see them when they came in in kin-dergarten.

There's just kind of an attitude that the kids come with, thatthere's something about them that you !mow that you do all thatyou can do for them, but then you know thatyou wonder if theycan just get through sixth grade.

You hope that you can do everything that you can do for them sothat at least they're reading, and writing, and being able to com-pute. But you know that they're not going to go anywhere.

And I do wonder where some of my students are. I really do.Mr. HAYES. Mr. Munoz, I understand, and I'm sure you saw it

too, the Secretary of Education, William Bennett, has requestedthat any dropout who returns to school, to write him, detailing thereasons for returning to school. And the Secretary promises to pub-lish this information.

Do you feel that this initiative by the Secretary is sufficient re-sponse to the national dropout problem?

62

58

Mr. MUNOZ. I would hope that the Secretary would not makethat as the only proposal thatto address the dropout problem.

But certainly that would not. I take it that the aim behind some-thing like that is to try to gather from the student, him or herself,what made that student come back.

I would say that that'sthe problem with that approach is thatwithout an institutional response or a programmatic aim at pre-venting dropout or having a reentry program, that person thatcomes back into the school probably came back for external forcesor having somethingnothing to do with what the school's effortswere.

So, it's going to miss the target, even if you do get some of thoseresponses.

But I do believe that preventive measures need to be introducedat the national level, and that the Secretary, as well as the admin-istration, as well as this congressional body, will be very well ad-vised to look at this thing.

As this Congress takes action, throughout the country, we arepaying close attention, because we know that the Congress ishaving its difficulty in knowing where to cut, and that there areseveral areas that are huge sections of the budget, be it Social Se-curity, or public aid, medical aid.

My comment is that those areas of the budget that arethat islarge in number and politically sensitive, that people depend upon,the welfare state, or Social Security, or Medicaid, did not have tobe that large if we had had a well prepared, educated society.

And my prediction is that it will be even larger if we don't takeon these preventive measures.

So, to answer your question in brief, Congressman Hayes, I be-lieve that a lot more needs to be done, and that kind of responsewill not be adequate.

Mr. HAYES. I notice that in your statement you deal, I think,quite correctly, with the co:relation between poverty and dropout,although you don'tand I don't think that's the only reason fordropout, but it certainly is a contributing factor.

You say that over 90 percent of our students meet the low-income criteria for free and reduced price lunch. Yet we face theprospects ofbased on Gramm-Rudman--of having that kind ofprogramits effectiveness reduced by the lack of funds.

And I know that you also have dealt with, in your statement,about the summer and the job program. And the mayor of the cityof Chicago, I heard him testify before a committee here when hewas in Washington. We stand to lose, in the next year, I think,some 16,000 summer youth jobs because of deficiency in funds.

Now, this does notthis bill has nothing to do with correctingthat situation, but certainly to recognize the growing number ofunemployment. And it does certainly makes us, it seems, like wantto do something more to try to encourage kids, which 3042 intendsto try to do, attempts to try to do, not drop out, of those who havedropped out, reenter school.

And I would hope that we may step up our activities in this di-rection and involve some of the other Members of our Chicago con-gressional delegation to support this kind of position.

6 3

59

Because I feel very strong aboutthere's a possibility that someof this ismay be by design, not by accident, that we think that wedon't need some of these poor kids to be educated, so let them go,let them resort to crime, forget them.

I think this is the wrong kind of attitude. I think it's the biggestmistake we can make as a society, as a people, as a country.

Mr. Murioz. Mr. Congressman, if I may, I'd like to just follow upon that. It's the biggest irony that I seeis that these are notpublic education is not a giveaway of any sort. In fact, if the stu-dents ever really realized the self-interest that school officials, andpoliticians, and public officials have in educating them so that theycan, in fact, have a strengthened society, stable financial society,and 1:zy the way of a good life for everybody, not just those stu-dents themselves, the irony is that other countries have to hide thefaLt that by design they want to keep people from being well edu-cated, by design they want to keep people from just having limitedskills so that they can produce in a certain level in their society.

Here, the irony is that people are looking at the free lunch fornutrition program for school kids so that they can perform better,and the irony of cutting back jobs and the like is that, withoutthem, we are basically guaranteeing a society that will not have abetter life for all of us. And the self-interest that we showwe'resort of cutting our own nose to spiteactions--

Mr. HAYES. Thank you.Chairman HAWKINS. Thank you.Mr. Gunderson.Mr. PUNDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to

the entire panel for your remarks.While I was not here to hear the statements, during the ques-

tioning I have had the opportunity to read them all.When you look at this issue of dropouts, I do not think anyone

can come away without being concerned.I suppose we all have the frustration that those of us in this

room are perhaps more concerned than some of them outside theroom, and that is part of the problem.

I would like to direct a couple of questions to Mr. Munoz fromChicago.

I was, frankly, quite impressed with a number of the items inyour statement as to what you are doing in Chicago.

I was curious. Is this funded with chapter 2 funds or anythinglike that, or how do you fund these numerous initiatives that youhave in place?

Mr. Munoz. There areit's different piecemeals. For example,the summer school part of it was from out-of-State title I dollars,and part of it was the chapter one dollars, for qualifying children.

So, our free summer school, which was a new initiative, we hadto charge in order to balance our budget. But we decided that forthose students that were falling behind one or more courses theywould go free. For those students that just wanted the extra credit,they would pay.

And we designated certain schools that were in those certainpoverty area, minority and poverty areas, that qualified for chapter1. We transferred some funds there for free summer school tothem.

6 4

60

So, basically, we've cut-and-paste our funds. We've used our owneducational funds.

There is nothere was no particular program at the time thatthese programs were initiated that were earmarked for that.

This last year, there's been some legislative statewide reformpackages that earmark, for example, this special, additional coun-selling and reading programs that we're going to have as part ofour programs.

But, as of yet, it was more our putting things together.Mr. GUNDERSON. Have you found, within the Chicago school

system, a rather significant disparity in the dropout rate from oneschool to the next?

Mr. MUNOZ. Yes; we found out that, first of all, Chicago's overallpopulation isit's 60 percent black, 22 percent Hispanic, 3 percentAsian, and 15 percent whites. And they don't mix in the city aswell as they should because of their housing situation.

So, we have some schools that are 95 to 100 percent one group,black or Hispanic. In those schools, we found the dropout rate to behigher, close to 70 percent.

In other schools that had a much better integrated student popu-lation or the neighborhood came from a stabilized family back-ground, we found the dropout to be drastically lower, less than thenational norm of 25 percent.

So, we have found disparities in the city, yes.Mr. GUNDERSON. As I reviewed all of the testimonyany of you

may want to comment on thisI get the impression that if moneywere available, what we really need is not another study, becausewe pretty much know what the problem is. We know, at this point,what does and does not work. It is a matter of getting the interven-tion funds to conduct the necessary intervention.

What we really need is a TRIO Program in high schools.I do not know how many of you are familiar with the TRIO Pro-

gram. It is a program targeted in colleges towards that first-timestudent from a family who has never had anyone in higher educa-tion before.

Mr. MUNOZ. Uh-huh.Mr. GUNDERSON. We target that student, provide special counsel-

ling, and special assistance to enable that s'anic-,t to complete theircollege career.

It seems to me that the ideal world would then present us withthe funds to create a program similar to that in the high schools.

Would you agree to disagree?Ms. HAYWOOD. I would like to say that one of the problems that I

seeand that includes most of the reports that come outthere ev-erything begins at the high school level.

I think you really have to reach back, take a look at those ele-mentary school youngsters. That's where it begins. The studentdoes not wait until they get to the 12th grade to consider leavingschool.

I think that part of the H.R. 3042 is that it really will take a lookat what is the definition of a dropout.

Is a student suspended from school a dropout? And he comesback.

I think those kinds of dernitions need to be put together.

6 5

61

Mr. GUNDERSON. Yes.Ms. HAYWOOD. I think there are lots of dropout programs out

there, but nobody is really coordinating any effort to bring all ofthem together to really see what's working and what's not work-ing.

And I think that's what's part of H.R. 3042 that I think that'svery important. But it reallyto put some emphasis on the coun-seling for students at the elementary, alternative school programs.Maybe the traditional school does not work for some students. Butat least you're catching that child before they leave you. And Ithink that's very important.

Mr. GUNDERSON. OK.Mr. MUNOZ. I would agree that we do know a lot of programs

that do work.But one has to remember the birth of these programs was not

necessarily aimed directly at curbing the dropout. And most pro-grams that we do have, we don'twe don't have the luxury tospend on certain evaluation and followup, and directives, and sortof observation type things because money is right.

I think this bill would allow, basically, give some guidance at thenational level to try to coordinate these efforts that no schoolsystem can afford, financially, to try to do on their own.

Mr. GUNDERSON. Apparently, you do believe that it is a twofoldneed. There truly is a need for a review a id a need for funding forthe chapter 1, Head Start, those type of programs.

Mr. MUNOZ. I do believeand I believe that this committee willbasically make history if it approves this bill and it's eventuallypassed. Because what will happen is that you need a national handat trying to define the extent of our performance as far as dropoutsis concerned.

There's a lot of school systems that have a vested interest in,maybe not hitching up to the definitional situation as to what is adropout or what is not, because of an inherentschool boards areelected, and you have to show a good record. They are public offi-cials just like anyone else.

And I believe that with a good definitional analysis of what adropout is and guidance as to how to follow it, school boardsitwill make it easier for them to hitch on and say do we have thenationaldo we incorporate the national definition of a dropoutand the like. And that will go a long, long wayand then shiftingback the responsibility to that school system to address its problem.

Mr. GUNDERSON. We have recently seen the Department of Edu-cation publish a book called "What Works," and distributed widelyacross the country.

I have to tell you, in all honesty, in my area, the book has beenreceived pretty well by people within the education system.

Is there any role, with or without additional funding, which iscertainly a budgetary question we face here, for the Department ofEducation, on the national level, to provide similar type of leader-ship and focus on the issue of dropout?

MS. HAYWOOD. I would say yes. I'm from Los Angeles. And aschool district that size, with a budget that's a little over $1 billion,it only allocated $1 million for its dropout program, and that's justa pilot program.

63-276 0 - 86 - 3

62

Lots of thatmost of that money is used foris to identify 150students at each highat many of the high schools, or the highrisk high schools, just to track students and work with 150.

But if you have a dropout rate of 43 percent, and it's even higherin the Hispanic community, $1 million doesn't go very far, andthere are lrsts of children out there that are dropping through thatnet.

And I really, I think that we really need to do more. And I thinkthe Department of Education is the impetus to help school districtsthat really have to take what arocations of resources they havenow and just spread them out.

And in talking to the director of that program, that's what's hap-pened. The school district just cannot afford what it really needs to

even though it's tryirig to do something with the problem.Mr. MUNOZ. My response would be, the question is, Is there a na-

tionalis there a reason for national involvement in this educa-tional dropout problem? And my response is, What is the nationalinterest?

If there's a high-national interest in it and impact on the Nation,then that, I think, should correspond.

What is the national interest on having our streets paved? Idon't know. But apparently there is some. It's just to the extentthere's interstate travel. So, there's national participation.

I go back to the irony of the whole thing here. This is not amatter that if the States aren't able to address it, well, so be it.That means we'll all fall. And that'sat least we'll point the fingerat somebody else.

I don't think we should try to worry about who to blame. But onething is for certain, there is no greater national interest, no greaternational interest than in education of everybod:, being and playingthe same game of educating our society and having a stable society.

And if the national Department of Education does not get in-volved, then, in the long run, it will be a real, real problem for soci-ety to come back.

Many countries in the rest of his world that are trying to comeback have at least 100 years to come back to or to at least make amove to where this country is at now.

If we lose what we have now, it will be that much more difficulttc come back. And it will involve a government that will have todictate, x. government that will have to become more centralized.And that is something that this society doesn't want.

So, what we want now is cooperation and participation in lieu ofdictatorship later on.

Mr. PERKINS. I have very few comments to make.I was interested in Mr. Munoz' statement concerning the Council

of Great City Schools will be publishing a report, this fall, on therange of dropout prevention and reentry programs in the city dis-trict. That strikes me as just an interesting thing to see. And Ihope that will be provided to us, here on the committee, when thatdoes come out.

Just one other question. It strikes me that this is an adjunct kindof thing to what we're talking about. But in the GAO study or thereport that was made by Mr. Gainer, today, it indicated that some

6 7

63

of the good predictors of young people who will drop out are being2 or more years behind grade level.

I think Mr. Munoz also indicated that there was "over age"Ithink was the remark that was indicated in his statement.

I wonder, has there ever been or is this the result of, the culturalpressure of being in a peer group that's younger than you are, gen-erally, and having that sort of situation occur? Or is it becausethese people or these children still are not up to par academicallywith what they are competing on?

You know, I have always had that question in my own mind. Idon't-4 have never felt that it was good to let the children get toofar behind so that they don't understand what's going on in thegrade level that they are in.

But I just wondqred to what extent is this over age thing, youknow, a problem, in a.nd of itself, or is it related back to the other.

Do you have a comment on it?Mr. GAINER. The only thing I can dredge up, thinldng about the

research, is that being behind in school is a better predictor thanpoor grades or being unable to read.

So that it may be that their peer group, is kind of out of touchwith the older student who then lacks support and I would think,as people age, they also get much more interested in getting outand getting some kind of income.

But the research that's been done doesn't, as far as I know, ad-dress that question in particular.

Is there anything from self-reporting by the students that wouldgive any idea on that?

STATEMENT OF ELLEN SEHGAL, SENIOR EVALUATOR, GENERALACCOUNTING OFFICE

MS. SEHGAL. Not that I know of.But there is a relation between being behind grade level and

having weak academic skills.I also believe that the research does show that, independent of

limited educational skills, being over age in itself is a major predic-tor. And it certainly is the strongest predictor for the likelihood oflow-income youth dropping out.

Mr. GUNDERSON. One other question that comes to my mind.I notice that there was a considerable difference, in Mr. Munoz's

statementabout people who were prior to the middle of the 10thgrade who dropped out, and those who dropped out somewhereafter that, in terms of coming back and giving the GED.

I notice that there was at least one program that was trying toget those early leavers, as I believe they are referred to.

Does thewhat are your feelings in terms ofmaybe justhasyour studies shown any of the real reasons? Again, is it this overage thing? These are the people who drop out, and they're trying toget them back in?

Could you just elaborate a little bit on the two different clasEfi-cations there?

Ms. SEHGAL. Well, the study that we were referring to that foundthat about half of the dropouts returned, that sample was for soph-

63

64

omores in 1980sophomores in the trHdle of their sophomoreyear.

The sample did not consist of any youth in earlier grades. So,there's no way of knowing what would have happened to thoseyouth, whether they would have been likely to return.

The analyst assumed that those youth who dropped out in theninth grade or earlier would have had much more serious problemsand would have been less likely to return.

Mr. GUNDERSON. So, you are talking about assumption as op-posed toMs. SEHGAL. That's an assumption.Mr. GUNDERSON [continuing]. Any sort of--MEL SEHGAL. However,--Mr. GUNDERSON [continuing]. Empirical study that would show

that there is a real gap that somehow splits at that time period.MS. SEHGAL. That's only an assumption. Because the data d.: not

allow anything more than that.However, data based on the National Longitudinal Surveys,

which is a survey of youth ages 14 to 21 when first interviewed in1979, show that the older youth, those 21 and 22, are less likely toreturn than, say, youth who are 15, and 16, and 17.

Mr. GUNDERSON. Wait.MS. SEHGAL. And that's based on an analysis.The two points are not contradictory actually, because you're

looking at youth, say, who are 16 and 17, and they're likely to dropout, and come back.

But by age 22, the research does show that they generally couldbe considered permanent dropouts.

Mr. GUNDERSON. I think so.Most of that struck me as commonsense.MS. SEHGAL. It is.Mr. GUNDERSON. As you know, the people with the highest

grades are those most likely to return, and thoseMS. SEHGAL. Exactly.Mr. GUNDERSON [continuing]. From the highest economic strata

were those most likely to return, and those from academic schoolswere those most likely to return.

So, all of those things kind of fit in to place. I was just wonder-ing, empirically, if there was any sort of data that would indicatethere was some sort of cutoff point before which, if they drnppedout, that it was very difficult to get them to go back in to the proc-ess.

MS. SEHGAL. Not that I know of.Mr. GUNDERSON. OK. Thank you.Chairman HAWKINS. Mr. Gainer, would you identify your assist-

ant there? She has contributed to the discussion, but she was neveridentified.

Mr. GAINER. I was trying to get an opportunity.It's Ellen Sehgal. Ellen is, by the way, a well-known expert on

employment and training programs, and has done much of the re-search that came out of the CPS that I cited frequently. And we'revery lucky to have her at the GAO.

Chairman HAWKINS. Thank you.And we certainly benefited by her presence.

6 9

65

If there are no further questions, the Chair would like to com-mend all four of the witnesses for their presentations this morning.

I think it's been very helpful.Mr. Hayes, you certainly have been benefited. I think ycur bill

has gained some prominence as a result of the hearing.Mr. HAYES. No question about it, Mr. Chairman.I want to thank you for having scheduled this subcommittee

hearing this morning.And I might suggest to you that I am ready to go to California

when you're ready to set it up. [Laughter.]Chairman HAWKINS. Well, you wait until it gets hot in Washing-

ton, and we'll be very glad to schedule the hearing.Thank you very much. And that concludes the hearing of the

subcommittee this morning.[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.][Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

66

Dropout Prevention and Reentry ActTestimy by Senator Bill Bradley

House Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary EducationMay 20, 1986

Mr. Chairman, I thank y a for the oppor.unity to testifybefore your Subemmittee about a subject hat concerns me deeply,the problem of high schoo' dropouts. In January, 1984, as amember of the Senate Children'. Caucus, I participated in a forumin New York City on the causes and conc.quences of dropping out ofschool. These hearings highlighted the seriousness of thA:problem, for the young person who leaves sco-nl, for his or herfamily, and for our Nation. To combat this serious problem , lastyear I intreduced the Secendary Schools Basic Skills Act (5.508).That bill would authorize funds to teach basic sk ,-.., toeducationally disr.dvantaged secondary school studers who, withouta mastery of these basic reading an..1 computational auilities, areat risk o: being driven out of the educational system. Just as weare vigilant in our efforts to raise the standards of excellencedemanded by our schools, we must be equally vigilant ,o addressthe needs of those students who cannot mn-A current standards letalone higher ones. Absent special attention, these students maycome to believe that remaining in school is a hopeless causebecause they simply cannot keep up. My legislation would helpdevelop lnd evaluate effective programs for teaching basic skillsto high school students to avert this situation. 1nfortunately,this bill is still in Committee.

Because of the unacceptably high rate of high schcoldropouts, I also was an or,.ginal cosponsor of S.1525, the DropoutPrevention and Reentry Act. This legislation reaches out to thosestudents who have given up on the educational process or arelikely to do so. The Dropout Prevention and Reentry Actauthorizes funds for schJols establish demonstration projectsto id ntify po:ential dropouts, to find wEys to prevent droppingout, and to help dropouts reenter school. Schools with ideas foreffective programs could apply for gr-nts to test those ideas.Successful prevention and reentry programs would disseminated.The bill also authorizes a one year study of the nature and extentof the dropout problem, and attempts to identify successfulmethods in ongoing programs. Thin bill is also still inCcAmittee. I am pleased to see tnat the companion legislation,1.R. 3042, is the subject of hearings today.

Thu number of students who begin, but fail to complete, highschool is unconscionable, particularly for a society, such as oursthat prides itself on its educational attainments andopportunities. More than one in four students who enters high_hool will not remain until graduation. This figure is abov. 50eercent in many urban areas, the city of Newark 3n myhome state of .Jew Jersey.

67

- 2-

The consequences of high school drop-outs for our Nation aresubstantial. Dropouts are far more likely to end up unemployedand needing public assistance. Nearly 4 out of 10 16- to 24- yearolds who dropped out of school are unemployed. In our moderntechnological world, workem must have the ability to retrain andupdate their skills throughout their adult lives and beyond theage of compulsory education. High school dropouts who will not becapable of changing with the expanding needs of our society.

High school drop-outs are not merely adolescents who aredestined to fail. Drop-outs are too easily characterized aslacking in mo'ivation. Yet, research has shown that the economicand social costs of failing to complete high school are not loston the dropouts themselves. Within two years of leaving school,approximately 50 percent of dropouts in a recent study reportedthat they had not made a good decision. Many attempt to secureeducation or training outside of regular high schools, somethrough the General Educational Development (GED) program. Asignificant proportion of dropouts want to succeed. We must helpthem in their efforts.

The recently released Carnegie report, "A Nation Prepared,"points to the need to increase our standards, and our rewards, interms of salaries and benefits, for the teaching profession.Report after report on education in the United States emphasizesthe need for schools to promote educational excellence in orderfor our Nation to remain strong and internationally competitive.Yet, we fail to provide one in four young people with a basichigh school education. In our push for excellence, we mustremember those students who need assistance to develop the skillsto function as contributing and productive members of society.

In our pursuit of excellence in education, we must be carefulnot to leave behind th:oe stud.rtnts who, for whatever reasons,elect not to continue in school. We must commit ourselves to thebelief that every student can svcceed in becoming a productivemember of our society. This bill is designed to help young peopleovercome obstacles to securing the skills they need and to becomethe best that they can be. We cannot do otherwise. I strongly urgesupport of this timely and important legislation.

68

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENTIN FkGARD TO H.R. 3042 - DROPOUT PREVENTION AND REENTRY ACT, MAY 20, 1986

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Committee on Education andLabor, Subcommittee on Elem2utary, Secondary and Vocational Education, theAmerican Association for Counseling and Development appreciates the oppor-tunity to share with you our comments in regard to H.R. 3042, the DropoutPrevention and Reentry Act.

The American Association for Counseling and Development consists ofmore than 49,000 professional counselors who work in the areas of education,mental health, rehabilitation, and human development services. Also, theAmerican School Counselors Assodation, a division of AACD, is the largestorganized body of its type in the world.

Our association congratulates the Committee for recognizing the needfor legislation preventing the tragedy of student; who leave school beforegraduation. As counselors, our members know tirsthand, the plight faced bypotential dropouts, dropouts, and reentry students. Dropout prevention anddropout reentry programs must meet the needs of its target population. In

such programs, it is the counseling dimension which takes on a much greateremphasis, for oftentimes, school counselors find themselves at the frontlineof crisis situations.

Counselors, faculty, administrators and other student personnel mustreach down past the "safety net" and hold potential dropouts, some as youngas age 13, from sliding down into an irreversible path of poverty and despair.

Students dropout of school for various reasons which include, but arenot limited to: economics, parenting, boredom, substance abuse, and low self-esteem. While counselors are the gatekeepers to the helping professions, pro-grams and services must be in place to which young people can be directed.

The potential dropout, the dropout and the reentry student arevery special individuals. If they were to be wrapped as packages, they wouldhave to marked, "fragile." Passage of H.R. 3042 by Congress would be timely,compassionate, and fiscally responsible. The funds associated with the billare much less than the financial and emotional costs of supporting a poverty-stricken parent lacking a high se-vol diploma whose child does not fully de-velop their mental faculties due 'Li, malnourishment.

The American Association for Counseling and Development, along withthe American School Counselor Association, strongly urge passage of H.R. 3042.We thank ycu Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee for allowing us toshare our views, and we stand ready to assist in whatever way possible.

69

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE AGING,INC.Since 1950 working to improve the lives of older Americans

600 MARYLAND AVE., SW WEST WING 100 WASHINGTON, GC 20024 TELEPHONE (202)4794200

Testimony Submitted by the

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE AGING, INC.

For Inclusion in the Report for theJoint Hearing on Illiteracy in America

Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational EducationHouse Committee on Education and Labor

Subcommittee on Education, Arts and the HumanitiesSenate Committee on Labor and Human Resources

June 12, 1986

Washington, D. C.

Ch.., Sklao. la? v.c. Cb Ftar. M ream. EvaEnd V.C. Cho, James 1 S El,. D am %rt.., Sy..

loe....., Jar.. Gunnino,ant Itra%uonr James N Ap.N.

Jack 0,...10.5.n.oP V.Er Don..

7 4

70

LITERACY FOR OLDER AMERICANS: A NATIONAL PROGRAM

Do we as a nation have the right to disregard the literacyneeds of the elderly in our efforts to combat adultilliteracy?

I. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM

Nine million older adults (55 and orer) cannot read or write

well enough to fill out a form, write a simple letter or read a

notice that may be critical to their survival (U.S. )3ureat: of the

Census, 1885)1. Many cannot even sign their own name. These

individuals live in an isolated world, dependent on others and

highly vulnerable. Unable to commun'_cate, understand essential

information or make informed choices, they are functionally il!i-

terate.

Older Americans who represent 38 percent of the U.S.

illiterate adult population, are among the most disadvantaged.

They do not have the basic skills to cope with the changes that

occur with the process of aging. The information and resources

essential to maintaining good health and proper nutrition,

adjusting to different housing needs, finances and transportation

requirements or securing entitlements, are unavailable to them

without assistance.

Despite the large, relative and absolute numbers of func-

tionally illiterate older people, few participate in community

adult literacy programs. Programs are usually delivered at

1U.5. Bureau of the Census, English Language Proficiency Study,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1M.

75

71

-2-

places they.seldom frequent (schools, learning centers, etc.) and

often operate in neighborhoods where elderly people fear to ven-

ture alone, especially at night. These programs focus on the

young adult with employment potential and are, for the most part,

not relevant for older adults with special needs.

Older adults who do enroll in community literacy programs, are

largely self-selected and not representative of the 'functionally

illiterate' older population. Lack of participation is confirmed

by statistics from the Clearinghouse on Adult Education of the

U.S. Department of Education. It reporta that in 1981, of the

2.3 million adults who participated in adult basic education

(ABE) programs offered nationwide, only six-and-a-half percent

were over 65 (or 149,500). The likelihood of participation by

older adults in such programs at the community level declined

markedly with age, with the young person more likely to return to

an adult education program.

Nor do service programs at the community level meet older

persons' literacy needs. The Literacy Volunteers of America

(LVA), a volunteer organization dedicated to tralninq literacy

tutors for all age groups, reported that of the 11,117 students

taught in 1983 by LVA affilitice smtbets, onlv 480 were 60 years

of age, or only 4.3 percent, Other literacy service providers

report similar Zindings. Only fouc to six percent of their

client population ex,:eede 60 years of age. This is also true

within the aging service system. A National Council on the Aging

(NCOA) study of educational programs for older adults reported

72

-3-

that of 51 community-based sites surveyed, 20 reported that up to

9 percent of their participants were functionally illiterate but

only seven addressed the problem. Most dealt with the problem by

referring an older person to an existing community literacy

program which created additional difficulties for those indivi-

duals and few followed through on the referrals.

Target Population

Numbers alone fail to indicate what it is like to be old and

to live in the closed off world of illiteracy. The inability to

read can cause confusion in taking proper medication, loss oi

public and private benefits when notices are received in the mail

and lack of participation in health maintenance and program acti-

vities offered through a senior program because the announcements

on the bulletin board cannot be read.

Illiteracy also has detrimental effects on the elderly

person's self-esteem and self-concept. The least educated and

most in need often feel inferior, dependent and embarrassed.

Unable to take control of their own lives, they are controlled by

the others they depend on to help them function.

Many older adults are reluctant to identify themselves or

openly seek the help they need. This complicates the issues of

recruitment, motivation and retention. Strategies need to be

created to reach these individuals and to help them develop bee:::

skills tor part,.cipating more fully in the social, economic and

political life of our society.

77

73

-4-

There are many anecdotes of beneficial changes that occur

when older persons do learn to read through tested methods such

as LVA and Laubach Literacy Action (LLA) as illustrated by the

following vignettes from professionals working with the elderly;

Mr. C. lives in a public housing high-rise for the elderly inDurham, North Carolina. Hit brother died and left him his auto-mobile. Mr. C. enrolled in a literacy program and formed aspecial relationship with one of the volunteers involved.Mr. C's original motivation was his desire to read the noticessent by the various agencies and those posted on bulletin boardsat the center. With the acquisition of the automobile, thisexpanded to include getting a driver's license. Through theassistance of a literacy tutor, Mr. C. got his driver's license.His appearance improved, reflecting his feelings of 'beingsomebody."

Mrs. P., age 68, lives in Georgia. She is active in her churchchoir and local senior center. Additionally, hhe cares for herblind husband whose health has been declining over the past fewyears. Mrs. P. began working with a literacy volunteer on aregular basis. Soon she was able to read the Bible to herhusband--her dream come true.

Mrs. M., age 67, attends a senior center in Philadelphia. Sheearned some money by sewing but was dependent on a daughter toread instructions when patterns were used. When the daughtermoved away, Mrs. M. tried to produce garments as she had in thepast. Several customers complained of the Aany mistakes she madeand her income dropped drastically. She was too emba.rassed toask for help until a senior center worker identified the basicproblem and involved her in a local literacy program. Afterlearning the basics of reading, Mrs. M. is now back at what sheenjoys doing, with satisfied customers.

Although the elderly comprise a significant proportion of the

illit.erate adult population, they have not been the focus of most

public and private sector efforts to combat the problem. To some

extent this neglect can be attributed to a form of ageism. Many

programs are designed with the assumption that the scarce resour-

ces available for literacy should be targeted toward increasing

opportunities for high school certification or employment.

74

-5-

Hence, such.programs address the survival needs of younger mem-

bers of the population rather than the egaally pressing needs of

older persons. This is reflected in the fact that the National

Adult Literacy Conference sponsored by the National Institute of

Education on January 19, 1984, did not even address the issue of

illiteracy among older adults.

Reacting to this apparent oversight, NCOA first raised this

issue within the literacy network and sought support from The

U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of

Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to target literacy education to

older adults. In September 1984, NCOA received a grant to devel-

op a national literacy demonstration piogram for older adults.

II. NCOA'S LITERACY EDUCATION FOR THE ELDERLY PROJECT (LEEP)

BACKGROUND

The Literacy Education for the Elderly Project (LEEP) was

designed to demonstrate the feasibility and deLirability of

recruiting and training older adult volunteers to work with other

adults who could neither read nor write and were so lacking in

basic skills that they could not function adequately in their

daily environment.

LEEP enabled NCOA to demonstrate in 23 sites nationwide (See

Appendix A for List of Sites) a strategy which:

(1) Linked at the local level the aging service network(senior centers, offices on aging, senior housingprojects, etc.) with the volunteer adult literacynetwork (Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA),Laubach Literacy Action (LLA) and other communitygroups including libraries and churches).

75

-6-

(2) Recruited and trained older adults as volunteerliteracy tutors and peer supports for other olderadults who lacked basic literacy skills.

(3) Delivered literacy education to older adults atsites in which they participated in large numbers.

(4) Provided literacy tutors and trainers withmaterials on how to address the special learningneeds of the elderly.

As part of the national effort, HCOA, with a small grant from

the Mars Foundation conducted a literacy demonstration project in

the D.C. area. This provided NCOA with an on-site laboratory

from which to learn directly the problem; and barriers other

demonstration sites faced.

Current Status of the LEEP Demonstration Phase

Through the national demonstration, methodn, materials and

techniques to implement LEEP objectives are being tested.

Comprehensive evaluation of the demonstration sites is being

completed.

Although final evaluation has not been completed, follow-up

surveys, telephone contacts and preliminary reports from project

coordinators support the value of this project nationwide, as

illustrated by the following quotes:

As sponsor of the Literacy Education for the Elderly Project,Literacy Volunteers of the South Central Tier in Corning,New York have reported the effectiveness of working with olderadults as tutors. The director reported "they are more patient,knowledgeable, flexible and have more time to offer. I do notworry as much about whether or not a match with a student willwork since most older volunteers will try and make it work, andthe matches we have made to date are working."

In Washington, D.C., a volunteer tutor was matched with a75-year-old man who had spent 40 years in a mental institution.The site director stated "prior to his tutoring, we neverrealized how much this man really knows. The personal attention

76

-7-

and special efforts made by this tutor have changed his life. Henow has the confidence to participate in other group programs,takes a bus' to the site now that he can read the bus schedule andis always looking for something new and more challenging toread.°

In Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Illinois, New York, New Jersey,

West Virginia, LEEP sites have organized community advisory com-

mittees for program support, recruited project coordinators,

developed linkages with a volunteer literacy resource, either a

Literacy Volunteers of America affiliate or a Laubach Literacy

Action council; recruited and trained older volunteer tutors who

are now tutoring older adults. It is estimated that approxi-

mately 250-300 tutors have been trained to work with older adults

and that 150-200 older persons are being tutored through the LEEP

programs. Though these numbers are not large in relation to the

need, the fact is that the sites were only selected in April,

1985 and considerable effort was required to organize the program

before training and tutoring could begin. For 23 sites to have

been able to organize a program without funding support from NCOA

illustrates the level of commitment that exists for such

programming.

Eleven of the 23 sites were able to obtain funds from either

education, library or aging funding sources. Sites in Alaska,

Arkansas and the District of Columbia obtained funding through

the U.S. Administration on Aging's (AoA) grants to 3tates.2

Sites in New Jersey, Illinois and New York obtained Library

Services and Construction Act (LSCA) monies. The New Jersey site

2A0A gave grants of $45,000 each to 20 state units on agingin January, 1986.

77

-8-

obtained State Adult Education Department funds and West Virginia

received funding from American Express. These support funds

generated reflect the positive and supportive effect the project

has had on the communities in which they are located.

A survey conducted by the demonstration site in Trenton,

New Jersey found most of the LEEP respondents did not know about

any other place where they could get help in learning to read

bettc.r. Lack of information about available classes was most

frequently given as the reaeon why they did not participate in

any program in the past. Only four had attended classes pre-

viously. Their reasons for leaving the classes included the

termination of the program, not enough attention from the

teacher, or a dislike of teenagers in the class.

Several differences from a general sample of ctudents

involved in literacy education emerged in the responses of the

elderly students. Almost all had learned about LEEP through a

group presentation. Their decisions to enter the program were

not job-related, certainly not surprising since, with one excep-

tion, the respondents were all retired or not working. Also,

unlike the general sample, the things that they wanted to learn

to read better were not job-related: the Bible was the most fre-

quently mentioned, followed by newspapers, mail and books.

In Parkersburg, West Virginia, the LEEP coordinator reports

one of the positive results of the demonstration is an increasea

awareness of the problem--including awareness within the Senior

Community Service Employment Program, a nationwide project which

trains and places low-income workers over age 55 in jobs with

community-based agencies. "We've always inquired about how

78

-9-

schooling the Title V enrollees have had, but now we're looking

for tactful. ways to determine if a newcomer would (quote) "like

to improve your reading skills" 'unquote). We've made announce-

ments about the project at our quarterly training essions;

several enrollees have indicated interest in tutor training, and

one of them has taken it. In two of the three courties where no

program has yet bean established by either of the two volunteer

literacy groups with which we work, there are interested people

and we hope to have programs underway in all three counties

within the next three or four months."

As mentioned earlier, NCOA is conducting a LEM, demonstration

in the District of Columbia. For this.local program, community

support was organized, training for tutors was planned, tutors

were recruited and matched with older students. A three-day

tutor training session for 27 older adults was conducted. Using

the LVA method, the training was adapted to the learning needs of

older adults. Some of the trainees became program managers and

work with the NCOA program coordinator to carry out project

tasks.

During the first phase of LEE7, NCOA provided mostly

technical assistance, which included materials, encouragement,

advice and guidance. Each oF the sites developed the project in

unique ways, depending on their own organizational structure,

local needs ard resources. NCOA supported this, for it provides

different options for others to consider in organizing a literacy

project for o]der adults.

79

-10-

The organizational variety of program sponsors added an

interesting.dimension to the project that had not been antiri-

pated. NCOA expected originally to be working primarily with

aging services: area asencies on aging, senior centers and city

offices on aging. However, schools, librarizs and church groups

applied to participate and a selected few from these groups were

included to give different perspectives and insights into the

development of literacy education for the elderly programs.

The project was designed to build on existing resources

rather than duplicate efforts. Each site was directed to work

..th the primary literacy resource, public or imluntary, in their

area. It could be an LVA affiliate, a.Laubach council or the

local ABE program. For example: in Arkansas, an area agency on

aging was the demonstration site, and, as a planning agency, they

are holding a literacy conference, forming coalitions in a six-

county area and working with the Laubach volunteer network. In

California, the Tremont Adult Education Union is the prime spon-

sor and they are using ABE teachers to provide training. In the

District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alaska and

New York, the demonstration sites have cooperated Timarily with

LVA. In Arizona, the city of Phoenix Aging Services and the

Arizona State University are working together. Different models,

principles and practices will emerge from the variety of sponsoLs

demonstrating the program.

The cost of LEEP has been modest. Each of the sites has

worked with local resources and services to develop the program.

Volunteer coordinators have been recruited from VISTA, Green

80

Thumb and the Senior Community Service Employment Programs to

assist in managing the literacy program. NCOA's role has been

primarily that of a broker and technical adviser.

Level Of Literacy Achieved: Are Needs Being Net?

Research on literacy indicates that it takes 8 to 10 months

of neeting several times a week to achieve one grade level of

reading. With older adults who have been away from structured

learning and testing, it takes a longer time period. However,

looking at grade level achievements seems inappropriate for this

population with many specific yet very different literacy needs

and goals and is not the primary focus of the LEEP project's eva-

luation. Also, the length and timing of the LEEP demonztrations

did not allow for significant changes in grade levels of reading

ilities as the major portion of the first year was spent on

overall program development. Some LEEP tutors have been working

as as nine months while other have just been matched with

students.

The majority of the LEEP student participants report a 0 -

6th grade educational background. Huwever, these individuals

attended school sixty years ago making self-reported educational

attainment an inaccurate measure even for recordkeeping purposes.

Each entered the LEEP experience with different goals and expec-

tationn rts well as different starting points. The thrust of the

LEEP program is to relate tha learning experience to the older

adults' current needs--to learn to sign their names, to acquire

81

-12-

vital health information, to get age-entitled benefits, to handle

their daily'affairs, to read ne Bible, and for personal satis-

faction, thereby helping them function more effectively in their

own environment.

Initial feedback from the tutors who have been working with

students for several months indicates that significmnt changes

are occurring in the lives of the older students. For example,

in Onancock, Virginia, an older woman has learned to read the

telephone book and use her telephone. Prior to her tutoring, she

only answered the phone when it rang. In Washington, DC, a stu-

dent has learned to read a bus sc,1 euii: and can now use public

transportation. Also in Washington, (I'student has learned the

alphabet and is now working on si.ule vOrds and phonics--a major

personal achievement in her life and a stepping stone to reading

to her grandchildren. An evaluation and analysis of the changes

occurring as a result of participation in LEEP is a focus of the

projact's final evaluation and is currently being conducted.

Emerging Programmatic Needs

LEEP was a demonstration program which has only scratched the

surface of the problem of literacy for older Americans. NCOA has

received hundreds of inquiries from local communities, state

offices and area agencies on aging, libraries and churches for

technical assistance on how to start such a program. These

requests and questions have related to program initiation and

development, student recruitment, training of older volunteer

82

-13-

tutors and the special needs of older learners. At the c:onclu-

sion of this two-year demonstration, NCOA will have an improved

capability to respond to the inquiries with materials, training,

information and guidance on how to start and maintain a literacy

program for older adults.

83

LITERACY EDUCATION FOR THE ELDERLY PROJECT

(LEEP)

FACT SHEET

Because the elderly comprise a large proportion of the United States'illiterate population but few participate in programs designed for adultilliterates, the National Council on the Aging (NCOA) has received a grantfrom the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) to reachout to this population and provide literacy training at sites which alreadyserve large numbers of older persons.

This project, beginning in September 1984, will link resources ofcommunity-based organizations serving the elderly and the volunteer Fteracynetworks to increase opportunities for literacy education for the older adultpopulation. Methods, practices and techniques appropriate for teaching olderadults will be identified. A cadre of older volunteers to serve as literacytutors and peer supports for older adults will be developed.

To test the approprialness of the materials, practices and techniques,20 sites nationwide will be selected and invited to participate as demonstrationsites. Each site will develop a literacy program serving older adults usingolder adults as literacy tutors in cooperatlon with a local volunteer literacyagency or council and other community resources.

It is anticipated that this project will: improve the elderly's accessto literacy education programs; increase their participation in such programs;enhance the capacity of functionally illiterate older adults for greater socialand economic self-sufficiency; link two critical networks having the communityresources to reach the functionally illiterate older adult--the aging servicesnetwork (through senior group programs) and the adult literacy network (throughlocal councils and affiliates of national literecy organizations such as LaubachLiteracy Action and Literacy Volunteers of America); increase opportunities forolder adults to serve as volunteer tutors and work with otner older adults;and develop and disseminate a literacy model for older adults based on projectresults which can be replicated natiorwide.

The project will produce:

A guide on how to initiate a literacy program with seniorgroup programs and local literacy groups.

A handbook to sensitize literacy tutors and instructorsto the special needs and concerns of older a.ults; and

Training materials on methods, practices and techniquesappropriate for teaching literacy to older adults.

For more information, contact:

Bella JacobsProject Director

Catherine Ventura-MerkelORProgram Associate

National Council on the Aging, Inc.600 Maryland Ave.,S.W.West Wing 100Washington, 0.C. 20024

84

National Associatism of Sooial WorkersILLINOIS CHAPTER30 NOAT11 MICHIGAN AVENIJi olICAGO.1)104013 60601 TEL (312) 2364304

June 19. 1986

The Honorable Charles HayesU.S. House of Representatives1028 LongworthWanhington, D.C. 20515

Attention: Howard Woodson

Dear Congressman Hayes:

MARIAN J. ONR. ACSWExecutive DOM.

We strongly support H.R. 3042, the 'Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act of 1985',and are pleased that you aro the chief sponsor in the House. We are, however.Et:guesting soffie minor language changes to bring social workers Into the 3111,which can havo significant effect on services provided by the Bill. We aresupporting tho submission of language changes by Isadore Hare of the NationalAssociation uf Eocial Workers, National Staff as presented to Howard Woodson.

STATEKEET SUPPORTIM LAIIGUAGE CRIMES

School social workers htve alsaya helped with dropout problems. The earliestschool social workers back in 1907 focused efforts on keeping the childrenof poor immigrant families in school. Understanding neighborhood conditionsand familr circumstances are traditional areas of concern and expertise for

the social worker in the school. Parant involvement is crucial to dropoutprevention and reentry. The school social worker links school to family, or

family with community resources in an ef/ort to deal with these problems.

When there are crises in tie family affecting school attendance, the schoolsocial worher, li. addition to helping the family through the crisis, acts asmediator, advocate, or ombudsman to explain the family and the school to eachother and to help reentry planning. Community organization skills suchas working with businers and social agencies to plan community support for

enccursging school attendance is a familiar activity for the school socialworker.

Irrelevant curricula haa lorg been cited as part of the dropout problem. Schoolsocial worker's understanding of the individual and family dynamics can be

of help to educators on cucriculum planning committees.

We, therofore, propose the following language changes to help strengthen H.R.3042,

1. SLC, 1006, AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES: Sub-section (2) add the words, 'anduchool social work" betwsen counseling and services. The sub-sectionwill now read:

(2) to provide guidance and counseling and school encial work servicesincluding Peer interaction activities;

2. In SEC. 1010, DEPINITIONS: We are suggesting a fourth sub-sectionreading:

(4) the term guidance and counseling means services provided by certifiedguidance counselor, and/or school social workers.

Very truly yours,

oan Pedota, CSW, ACSWPresident,Illinois Assoc. of School Social Workers

Ise

Margaret M. Kennedy, CSW,ACSWIllinois Chapter President

c: Congressman Augustus P. HawkinsU. S. House of RopreeentativesRayburn House Office Bldg., B - 346 C EnclosureWashington, D.C. 20515

cc: Holbert Simoncc: Isadore sere

H.R. 3042, THE DROPOUT PREVENTION ANDREENTRY ACT

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1986

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,SUBCOMM.7TTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY,

AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION,COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Chicago, IL.The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., Confer-

ence Room, Chicago Urban League, 4510 South Michigan Avenue,Chicago, IL, Hon. Augustus F. Hawkins presiding.

Members present. Representatives Hawkins and Hayes.Staff present. Jol:n F. Jennings, counsel; Jeff Fox, assistant coun-

sel.Chairman HAWKINS. The meeting will come to order.Can those of you in the rear of the auditorium hear us? If not,

raise your hand. I assume you do since you have not raised yourher d.

May 1 simply say that I am Gus Hawkins, California, chairmanof the Eduion and Labor Committee and of the subcommittee.

It is my pleasure to open the hearing this morning in Chicago.May I take this opportunity of extending to you a welcome andalso introduce the person who will preside at the hearing today. It

tht: custom of the committee, in the field hearings that we holdth;..-ttghout the country, to have the representative of the districtin which we happen to be physically located chair the hearing.

It is, indeed, a pleasure this morning for me, therefore, to turnthe gavel over to my distinguished colleage and your representa-tive, Mr. Hayes. May I first of all say that it has always been apleasure for me to have him on the subcommittee as well as thefull committee.

In adit ition to that, he is the author of a bill that we will be hear-ing this morning, H.R. 3042, the Dropout Prevention and ReentryAct of 1985. This is, indeed, a serious problem throughout the coun-try, but especially in the cities.

May I take this opportunity of introducing the staff that is withus today? To my right, immediate right, is Mr. Jack Jennings, thegeneral counsel of the committee; and seated somewhere aroundhere, at the end of the table, Mr. Jeff Fox, the assistant counsel tothe minority members of the committee. Minority in this Listancemeans the Republicans. However, let me assure you, this issue is abipartisan concern, and we are delighted to have both counsels rep-resented here today.

(85)

93

86

It is often said that one of the toughest members of the commit-tee, tough in the sense of getting things done and in insisting thatwe adhere to certain principles, is the Representative, Mr. Hayes.He is also, in my opinion, the most committed member of this sub-

. committee. Many times, when we go on field hearings, he is alwaysthe 1 that we can depend upon, and it is because of that that hepersuaded a Californian to be with him today, in part as paymentfor that commitment of his.

We look forward to the witnesses. We understand there is a timeconstraint with many of them. We will try to proceed with dis-patch, and if, at times, we do not pursue the questioning, you canunderstand that we are trying to accomplish a great deal in 1 day.

We will also have one or two site visits to some of your localschools that have been selected because of outstanding programs.

At this time, may I turn the meeting over to your distinguishedRepresentative, Mr. Charles Hayes.

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.I realize the time constraints which we are operatin{ under. I

know the mayor is operating on a very busy time schedule, and Iam going to withhold the remarks that I have until we at leasthear from our host for this hearing. This wonderful building hereis the home of the Chicago Urban League, and as we discussedhaving to find a place for this hearing, we found the Urban Leaguevery cooperative. They opened up this facility for this purpose andas the one who made the decision for us, it was none other thanthis very, very active chairman and president of the Chicago UrbanLeague, the board of which I am a part of, too, I would like at thistime to have a few remarks from Jim Compton, the president ofthe Chicago Urban League.

[Applause.]Mr. COMPTON. Thank you. Thank you very much, Congressman

Hawkins and Congressman Hayes, to our distinguished chairmanof this committee, Congressman Augustus Hawkins, from the greatState of California, and to our honorable member.

It is our pleasure here at the Chicago Urban League to welcomeyou to this hearing on the Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act of1986. Certainly, the Chicago Urban League, a long time advocate ofquality education, 3 deeply honored to serve as the host site forthis occasion.

I want to applaud Congressman Charles Hayes, CongressmanHawkins, as well as all this morning's participants and their con-tinuing concern on this extremely important issue.

It is our hope that this hearing *will provide the informationfoundation necessary to secure passage of this important legisla-tion.

With that, I will turn the meeting back over to Congressman Au-stus Hawkins, chairman of the Subcommittee on Elementary,

Secondary and Vocational Education of the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives.

Thank you.Mr. HAYES. Just to make some brief opening remarks, I want to

say to our chairman, Mr. Hawkins, it is, indeed, a pleasure for meto welcome you here to Chicago on this occasion, especially gratify-

9 1

87

ing for me since we are present to here testimony on H.R. 3042, theDropout Prevention and Reentry Act, legislation, which as youhave said, I introduced in an attempt to stem the tragic loss oftalent and potential of so many of our young boys and girls. I real-ize how precious our time is today, and we are going to 'hear fromvery distinguished lineup of witnesses, and I am looking forward tohearing what they have to say to this subcommittee on the highschool dropout problem.

Mr. Chairman, your former colleague, who is also my friend, andmayor of the city of Chicago, Harold Washington, will be our firstwitness.

I would also like to take special acknowledgement of the pres-ence of the Chicago school superintendent, Manford Byrd, also aninvited witness. It was a meeting in my Washington office with Su-perintendent Byrd, the Chicago School Board President Munoz,that inspired my drafting the Dropout Prevention and Re-EntryAct.

On May 20, President Munoz provided this subcommittee withextremely important and enlightening testimony on H.R. 3042. Notonly on lythalf of the Chicago school system, but also for the Coun-cil of the Great City Schools. I was pleased to hear the Chicagopublic school system has taken steps to not only curb this dropoutrate, but also to retrieve some of the youth who have already leftschool.

Chicago's dropout problem is not uncommon. Every major city inthe United States has a similar problem. UnfOrtunately, there is nosingle reliable measure of our national dropout rate. Thus, we areleft with only estimates, shocking estimates, in my judgment, rang-ing from 13 to 25 percent.

A recent report of the Education Commission of the States notedthat every year, 700,000 students drop out of school. Nationally,one in four students fails to graduate, and in inner cities, that av-erage doubles to about one out of every two students. In contrast,in Japan, all but 7 percent of the students complete high school.

So, this becomes a problem that we have to look at. We hope toget the kind of impetus from this hearing in Chicago that will forceand encourage our legislators of whom I am a part of in thz Houseof Representatives to favorably mark this 'oill up tomorrow.

I yield now to the chairman, Mr. Hawkins.[The opening statement of Hon. Charles A. Hayes follows:]

88

OPENING STATEMENT

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY

& VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

HEARING

ON

H.R. 3042

THE DROPOUT PREVENTION & REENTRY ACT

THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. HAYES

FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - ILLINOIS

JUNE 23, 1986

CHICAGO, IL.

89

CHAIRMAN HAWKINS, IT IS INDEED A PLEASURE

FOR ME TO WELCOME YOU TO MY HOMETOWN.

THIS OCCASION IS ESPECIALLY GRATIFYING FOR ME

SINCE WE ARE PRESENT TO BEAR TESTIMONY ON

H.R. 3042, THE DROPOUT PREVENTION AND REL4TRY

ACT - - LEGISLATION I INTRODUCED IN AN ATTEMPT

TO STEM THE TRAGIC LOSS OF TALENT AND

POTENTIAL OF SO MANY OF OUR YOUNG BOYS AND

GIRLS. I REALIZE HOW PRECIOUS OUR TIME IS

TODAY AND THEREFORE I WILL MAKE MY REMARKS

VERY BRIEF.

TODAY WE WILL HEAR FROM A VERY

DISTINGUISHED LINE-UP OF WITNESSES AND I AM

LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT THEY HAVE

TO SAY TO THIS SUBCOMMITTEE ON OUR TRAGIC

HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT PROBLEM. MR. CHAIRMAN,

YOUR FORMER COLLEAGUE, WHO IS ALSO MY MY

FRIEND, AND MAYOR OF CHICAGO, HAROLD

WASHINGTON, WILL BE OUR FIRST WITNESS.

4

90

PAGE 2

ID ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A SPECIAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF CHICAGO

SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT, MANFORD BYRD, ALSO

AN INVITED WITNESS. IT WAS A MEETING IN MY

WASHINGTON OFFICE WITH SUPERIENTENDENT

BYRD AND CHICAGO SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT

GEORGE MUNOZ THAT INSPIRED MY DRAFTING THE

DROPOUT PREVENTION AND REENTRY ACT.

ON MAY 20TH, PRESIDENT MUNOZ PROVIDED THIS

SUBCOMMITTEE WITH EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND

ENLIGHTENING TESTIMONY ON H.R. 3042, NOT ONLY

ON BEHALF OF THE CHICAGO SCHOOL SYSTEM, BUT

ALSO FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY

SCHOOLS. I WAS 'PLEASED TO HEAR THAT THE

CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM HAS TAKEN STEPS

TO NOT ONLY CURB IT'S DROPOUT RATE, BUT ALSO

TO RETRIEVE SOME OF THE YOUTH WHO HAVE

ALREADY LEFT SCHOOL. CHICAGO'S DROPOUT

91

PAGE 3

PROBLEM IS NOT UNCOMMON. EVERY MAJOR CITY

IN THE UNITED STATES HAS A SIMILAR ONE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO SINGLE RELIABLE

MEASURE OF OUR NATIONAL DROPOUT RATE. THUS

WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY ESTIMATES. SIMEKINg

ES l'IMATES IN MY JUDGEMENT RANGING FROM 13

TO 25 PERCENT. A RECENT REPORT OF THE

EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES NOTED

THAT EVERY YEAR 700,000 STUDENTS DROP OUT OF

SCHOOL. NATIONALLY, ONE IN FOUR STUDENTS

FALL TO GRADUATE, AND IN INNER CITIES THAT

AVERAGE DOUBLES TO ABOUT ONE IN EVERY TWO

STUDENTS. IN CONTRAST, ALL BUT 7 PERCENT OF

THE STUDENTS IN JAPAN COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL.

WITHOUT A PROPER EDUCATION, A PERSON IS

ALL BUT DESTINED TO BE ON THE LOW END OF THE

TOTEM POLE OF LIFE. THEIR ABILITY TO EARN A

DECENT WAGE THEIR ABILITY TO SECURE DECENT

92

PAGE 4

LIVING QUARTERS - -THEIR ABILITY TO FUNCTION

EFFECTIVELY IN AMERICAN SOCIETY -- OR TO

SIMPLY ENJOY THE REWARDS OF AMERICAN LIFE - -

ALL DEPEND ON OBTAINING AN EDUCATION.

IT IS TIME WE WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT

THOSE STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL NOT

ONLY DO A DIS-SERVICE TO THEMSELVES, BUT ALSO

TO THE REST OF SOCIETY AS WELL. ACCORDING TO

ONE RESEARCH ESTIMATE', DROPOUTS COST OUR

NATION $71 BILLION DOLLARS IN LOST TAX

REVENUES; $3 BILLION FOR WELFARE AND

UNEMPLOYMENT; AND $3 BILLION FOR CRIME

PREVENTION. ALL TOTALED $77 BILLION A YEAR.

WHILE H.R. 3042 IS NOT GOING TO END OUR

NATIONS' DROPOUT PROBLEMS, I BELIEVE IT WILL

GO A LONG WAY TOWARD PROVIDING SOME VERY

NECESSARY APPROACHES AND HOPEFULLY,HENRY LEVIN, STANFORD UNIVERSITY

PAGE 5

SOLUTIONS, WHICH OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS CAN

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IN ADDRESSING THEIR

DROPOUT PROBLEMS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IN CONCLUSION, I WANT TO

PERSONALLY COMAEND YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR

BRINGING THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO CHICAGO.

i AM CERTAIN THE INFORMATION OUR INVITED

WITNESSES WTLL PRESENT TODAY WILL MORE THAN

JUSTIFY YOUR V I. SIT.

THANK YOU.

63-276 0 - 86 - 4 93

94

Chairman HAWKINS. Mr. Hayes, I had intended for you to contin-ue.

Mr. HAYES. I then call the first panel.We will hear first from the mayor of the city of Chicago, Harold

Washington. He will be followed by panel No. 1.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD WASHINGTON, MAYOR, CITY OFCHICAGO, IL

Mr. WASHINGTON. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Haw-kins and Congressman Hayes, for, one, conceiving of the idea offirst filing such an awesome piece of legislation, CongressmanHayes, and, two, to Congressman Hawkins for honoring our city insuch a way that we could dramatize the problem, which is not con-fined to Chicago, although it is certainly one of the main, mainconcerns of those who want this kind of legislation passed.

I must say, Congressman Hawkins, I am sitting here today withsome degree of nostalgia. I served, as you know, with you on theCommittee on Education and Labor and had the occasion to go outon field trips with you to such Y31.aces as Los Angeles, and we hadsome marvelous hearings in other places.

As I stand here this morning, I am just recalling the marveloustimes we had going around the country, talking to people and veri-fying how they were dealing with the .*:ems, whether it wastheir food stamp problems or a munitudr.. ot ..roblems confrontingpeople primarily in the urban areas.

Although I do not have a desire to re;Arn to Congress, I mustconfess my association with you during th3se days had a mostjoyous aspect of that congressional period. So, thank you for onceagain directing your nttention to a problem which has got to bedealt with.

I want to thank you for coming here. I am happy to appear todayto lend my support to H.R. 3042, the Dropout Prevention and Re-entry Act of 1985. It is an appropriate response to a national prob-lem that has reached epidemic proportions. The dropping out ofschool of millions of young people and their inability or refusal forwhatever reason to return to school to complete their education.

Current research puts the national dropout rate, as CongressmanHayes indicated, at approximately 29 percent. Over one-half of thedropouts in the State of Illinois are from Chicago, and the rate inChicago ranges from 36 to 43 percent based on two recent ratherdefmitive studies.

Further, dropouts amongst Hispanic students are 47 percent, 54percent for Hispanic males alone, 45 percent for black studentsoverall, and 53 percent for black males alone, and 3E percent forwhite students overall. So, we can see it is not a problem confinedto any one segment, but certainly a tremendous, tremendous prob-lem.

There is a lot of social disorganizationdisorganizational prob-lems which flow from those statistics. One, for example, over thepast 18 months, we in Chicago have registered approximately100,000 new jobs, net new jobs. The dropout student is not going tobe the beneficiary of those new jobs mainly because they represent,in a sense, service jobs which come into a city, which are moving

9 9

95

gradually away from heavy industry to manufacturing and a bur-geoning service economy.

So, the dropout rate is testimony to the fact that future youngChicagoans, if they stay here, will not be able to gain employmentbecause the jobs, which have traditionally gone to those of strongbacks and willing minds, simply cannot be had.

One of the studies referred to on dropouts from Chicago's publicschools was completed a little more than 1 year ago by the ChicagoPanel on Public School Finances, also known as CHIPS.

The study did an analysis of the records of 100,000 Chicagopublic school students in the class of 1982. Among its fmdings werethe following:

First, only 45 percent of all entering freshman with readingskills below the eighth grade level go on to graduate. In contrast,70 percent of those reading at or above the eighth grade level didgraduate on time.

The inescapable conclusion is that there is a direct correlationbetween the ability of students to read at their proper grade leveland these alarmingly high dropout rates. This is a situation inwhich the statistics follows an observeable path, we all know that.We can see it as we move around and talk to people.

Such high dropout rates are contributing to another growingproblem, adult functional illiteracy, which is also gaining nationalattention.

Second, among entering high school freshmen, dropout rates formales 16 years or older was 71 percent; for females, 64 percent.Consequently, we need to look at what makes older high schoolfreshmen more prone to dropping out of school than younger fresh-men. I do not know if they have ever compared the reasons whymore boys than girls drop out, but certainly that should be investi-gated, too. It might well be that women are inherently smarterthan men which could account for their staying in school longer.Whatever the reason, I think we have got to look at that avenue ofresearch as well.

H.R. 3042 does not attempt to offer an all-encompassing solution.Its basic premise is that this is a national problem whose solutionrequires the full resources and commitment of the Federal Govern-ment, combined with those of local school districts and concernedgroups and individuals.

In short, H.R. 3042 calls for the kind of public-private partner-ship that is a basic principle of my administration and which is es-sential to the solution to most, if not all, major public policy ques-tions.

Here, I think, in the process of looking at this problem, Congress-man and chairman, we should look at the administration posturein terms o: 2,iblic-private partnerships and also look at the admin-istration posiare in terms of the longstanding 50-year-old partner-ship which has existed between the Federal Government and themunicipalities, and to the extent that that partnership has erodedto that extent, these problems will continue to grow and grow andgrow and grow, and you can find the erosion and pulling back interms of IMAG grants, urban action grants, mass transit grants,all these wings, which are destined to return dollars to the cities,

100

96

so that the cities can continue to function, must be given a hardlook at in your bill.

I would offer several recommendations in the search for answer::to the dropout problem. We need to find ways to identify e1emeli4cry school students with learning disabilities or other probie,nwhich are likely to cause them to drop out of school later on.

This is an avenue we certainly talk and talk and talk about,no one, that I know of, has really seriously committed thems,Ave.to simply looking and talking and observing our young people todetect and pull out those disabilities, whether based on nutritionwhatever, and to look at this. Otherwise, we are just turning outgeneration of dropouts and rejects who would have a chance haawe detected them with proper diagnostic techniques whatever prob-lem they might have had at an early age.

Also, there is the continuing need to increase the support and re-inforcement students get in their home environments. I know thisis a historic problem for education specialists, but it is one that re-quires our constant attention. The more support students get athome, the less likely they are to drop out as they progress towardgraduation.

Third, we need to increase the funding to public education, espe-cially to bilingual educatbn programs. A major infusion of newmoney into these programs would surely help reduce dropout ratesamong Hispanic students.

I also want to stress the importance of providing meaningfulwork and opportunities for students when they graduate. The edu-cation they receive must pr,-;pare them to eventually enter theworld of productive work.

One of the worst things that the present administration haJ donehas been to cutback on summer youth employment, and the secondworst thing they did was to underfund the chairman'sprogram.Had they funded at the $6 or $7 billion level, I have forgotten, Con-gressman Hayes, had they funded that program at that level, Idaresay that this problem would be even less serious than it istoday. In short, we are not directing ourselves to those kinds ofmechanisms and tools which we know work. Many of the dropoutsdo it just based on pride. Students do Dot want to go to school be-cause they do not have proper clothes or whatever students have tohave nowadays. They cannot have those things if they do not haveany money, if they do not have a dollar or two to spend on theirgirlfriend. Nothing wrong with that. If they can raise no dollars,they are not going to go to school, you know. Just one of thosethings.

We have got to recognize what we call the minor pecadilloes andminor foibles of mankind. You play with them, you do not fightthem, and students are not going to go school, a boy is not going togo to school if they have no shoes, they have no clothes, they haveno way of appearing in the light they want to appear in.

It seems clear to me that if students understand that good, well-paying and rewarding jobs are more likely when they graduate,they will be less likely to quit school at the lower level, either toearn money or for any other reason.

101

97

would urge you not to reinvent the wheel as we design andfund demonstration programs to address the problems of dropoutsand literacy in Chicago and across the Nation.

In Chicago, we have, under the auspices of the AlternativeSchools Network, a system of community-based high schools, whichhave been working effectively with high school dropouts for thepast 10 years.

The most successful models include schools which are close to thestudents' own neighborhoods, have small classrooms taught byteachers who understand the local community issues, which in-volve parents in the school, which use a curriculum which address-es the students' needs and interests, which provide job-relatedtraining, and which provide one-on-one counseling.

Programs for dropouts should include as many of these qualitiesas possible. Community-based schools for dropouts, however, do notprevent students from dropping out.

Real prevention will require a substantial increase in funding forenriching elementary school education, thus equipping eighth grad-ers with the skills they need to succeed in high school.

We will not be able to tackle this problem effectively without ad-ditional resources for urban schools. The tax base does not exist incities, that I know of, to fund the schools at levels comparable totheir suburban counterparts. This is a problem which you cannotduck and dodge, and this is one that Congress must look at in itstotality, not just in terms of schools, in the surburban areas byvirtue of their use of the cities as workplaces and their own subur-ban areas as bedrooms, have been able to squhrel away additionaldollars which they invest in the suburbs to the exclunion of thecities and provide the services, the protection, et cetera, in the sub-urban areas burgeon and grow and provide better facilities.

So, there is an imbalance based upon the fact that to a greatextent, the suburban worker does not pay his freight. These arethings that Congress should have as background and to take, shallwe say, congressional notice of in the process of trying to help tosolve this problem.

It seems to me it is a responsibility of the Federal and State Gov-ernments to invest in our children and their future as a matter ofthe highest national priority. If our children's flture is not secure,we have no national security.

Consistent with this recommendation, maintaining the relation-ship between learning and earnings, I would offer the following asthe language for inclusion as paragraph H in section 1005, subsec-tion 3:

Provide mechanisms which focus on the importance of developing oecupa tonalcompetencies which link job skill preparation and training with other employeetraining programs and genuine job opportunities.

In short, I think we need a component in that legislation whichstresses the need to relate young people much closer to job opportu-nities and job training, job skills, job placement.

Let me conclude by thanking the subcommittee members for theopportunity to offer this testimony thin morning. We desperatelyneed answers to the school dropout pr Allem this bill addresses. I

1C2

98

applaud its sponsors and supporters and urge its speedy consider-ation.

I think you are in for a rare treat today. Wc have in this citysome of the most capable paople in the field of elementary and kec-ondary education that you can find in the world. They have some-thing to offer, and I think if this problem is solved here in Chicagoand throughout the world, it will be because of people like thosethat you are going to hear today, who have addressed themselvesto this problem and now come to yc u, the movers and shakers ofthis country, to try to do something about it.

Thank you very ,nuch.Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.[Applause.]Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you very much.Mr. HAYES. Thank you again for taking the time in your busy

schedule to come here and present testimony as chief executive ofthe city of Chicago.

We understand that your schedule is such that you would nothave an opportunity to remain for questioning from any mamber ofour committee here. So, as customary, if we have any pressingquestions that we want answers to, we will reduce them to writingand send them to you.

MT. WASHINGTON. Thank you.Mr. HAYES. Thank you again for coming.Chairman HAWKINS. May I simply acknowledge toe generous re-

marks made by the mayor of the city? When you left the commit-tee, I thought that we had lost you. It seems that we have gainedboth ways. We have gained a chief executive of a major city, whostill believes in eaucation, which I think sets an example for manyothers, and in a4tlition to that, we gained Mr. Hayes.

I feel doubly honored to have been identified with both of you.Your testimony today, I think, was outstanding. Certainly, it wassubstantive in nature, and I think it indicates your deep commit-ment tn education.

Thank you.Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you.[Applause.]Mr. HAYES. Our first panel is Dr. Manford Byrd, superintendent

of Chicago Public Schools. Will you come forward? Dr. Dan Dixon,assistant superintendent, State board of education; Judith Stein-hager, principal, DuSable High School; come forward, please.

Let me suggest to each of you that your entire statement, if yousubmit it in writing, will be entered into the record here, and youmay choose to deal with it in its entirety or deal with the highpoints of it, whichever way you choose to do it, but the entire state-r- nnt will be made a part of the record of the subcommittee here.

Dr. Byrd, we will proceed with you.

STATEMENT OF DR. MANFORD BYRD, SUPERINTENDENT,CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Dr. BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Hayes, to Chairman Hawkins, and toyou, Mr. Hayes.

103

99

My name is Manford Byrd, Jr., and I am the general superin-tendent of ti..e Chicago Public Schools. Mr. Hayes I noted yourcomments that my statement will be entered into the record fully,and I will use some of it and make some other summarizing com-ments regarding my statement.

Last month, Mr. George Munoz, president of the Chicago Boardof Education, testified in Washington, DC, before the House Educa-tion Subcommittee on Etewentary, Secondary, and Vocational Edu-cation. At that time, Mr. Munoz called for the passage of H.R. 3042,the Dropout Prevent and Reentry Act of 1985, to address the veryserious student dropouL problems in school districts across theNation.

This morning, in testimony before this committee, I, too, endorse,this legislation. The Chicago Public School System has had twomajor studies done on its dropout problem in the past 14 months.Ont by a local school watch group, the Chicago Panel on PublicSchool Finances, referred to by Mayor Washington, and, most re-cently, by De Paul University.

Beyond attempting to determine statistically the breadth andaepth of this crucial problem in Chicago, these studies emphasizethe need of the Chicago Public School System to address more ex-pansively the real causes of students leaving school, such as lowclassroom achievement, failure to progress from grade to grade,teenage pregnancy, gang involvement and intimidation, and eco-nomic difficulties in the family.

The school system has initiated a number of programs responsiveto theso studies. One of the first was a lighted schoolhouse pro-gram; by its label, a program that attempted to put together educa-tional tutoring and recreational offerings, and during the pastyear, we have offered some 15,000 students in 72 of our school sitesthe opportunity to participate in such programs.

It seems to be very helpful, very beneficial, certainly needs ex-pansion. Additionally, another initiative started by the school dis-trict was a summer school program, realizing that youngsters whohave no way of staying close to their age cohorts will, indeed, dropout of high school.

And, so, last summer, an expanded free summer school offeringwas made to students who had multiple failures in high school, andover 45,000 youngsters in our total summer school program tookadvantage of that. This year, starting today, as the result of oursuccess of last year, a summer school program is underway, but,again, as last year, the number of youngsters served falls far shortof those who need the service.

We have initiated a reading improvement program, especially foryoungsters in grades 1 through 6, with the understanding that ifwe can make those youngsters more successful, they will be moresuccassful in high school and stay on.

Since the first of the year, we have provided prekindergarteneducation for 8,000 at-risk 3 and 4 year olds. It is a meager start,but it is a start, I think, in the right direction.

Additionally, we have provided additional counseling, additionaltutoring, have tried to implement some reentry programs that wethink will be responsive to the dropout concern. We have been con-

1C4

100

cerned with drug abuse problems and have attempted to find fund-ing for those programs.

As the mayor indicated before, certainly, I think, we have initiat-ed some programs that are promising. So, we would hope that theprovisions of this bill would take into account some of those find-ings, even as we look for additional ways to retrieve youngstersand to help those who stay with us to be more successful.

Someone asked me what did I plan to say to this committee, andit is simply to say that we applaud your efforts. We are in favor ofthe bill in the Chicago School System because we think it will com-plement some of the meager efforts we have started to addresswhat we recognize and believe to be a very serious concern.

I am convinced, however, that with Federal legislation that is ofassistance, with continued aid increased State funding, and withthe participation of business, with our renewed efforts, that we canaddress this problem. We can make more students successful and,indeed, we must do these things.

Thank you very much for having me.[The prepared statement of Dr. Manford Byrd followsl

105

101

Testimony ByDr. Manford Byrd, Jr.General Superintsndent ofChicago Public Schools

The Dropout Prevention and Reentry Act (.1.R. 3042)Chicago Urban League

June 23, 1986

Mr. Chairman, my name is Manford Byrd,Jr., and I am General Superinten-dent of the Chicaso Public Schools.

Last mon ,, Mr. George Munoz, President of the Chicago Board ofEducation, testified in Washington, D.C. before the House Education Subcom-mittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education. At that time,Mr. Munoz called for the passage of H.R. 3042 to address the very seriousstudent dropout problem in school districts across the nation.

This morning, in testimony before this committee, I, too, endorse thislegislation.

The Chicago public school system has had two major studies done on itsdropout problem in the past 14 months...one by a local schools watch group,the Chicago Panel on Public School Finances, and most recently by DePaulUniversity.

Beyond attempting to determine statistically the breadth and depth ofthis crucial problem in Chicago, these studies emphasize the need for theChicago public school system to address much more expansively the rootcauses of students leaving school, such as low classroom achievement,failure to progress from grade to grade, teenage pregnancy, gang involvementand intimidation, &id economic difficulties in the family.

Not only did the school system cooperate fully in the development ofthe two studies, specific initiatives were implemented to address thedropout problem as it was being studied.

One of the first initiatives undertaken in my administration was thereinstitution of the Lighted Schoolhouse Program. With very limited fundsat our disposal this year, we were able to serve some 15,000 youngsterseach week in 72 of our schools...keeping the doors open after the regularschool day and involving youngsters in supervised educational and recrea-tional pursuits.

-more-

rt

-CO 0

102

-2-

The Lighted Schoolhouse Program is one that we would like to expand...indeed, it is a program that must be expanded if we are going to reachevery student who is a potential dropout and if we are to give all of ouryoung people an educational and recreational alternative to gangs.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, funds from the legislation under considerationwould give this program the much needed financial boost it requires toexpand.

Another initiative undertaken last year...again with very limited fundsat our disposal...was the implementation of a comprehensive summer schoolprogram which included free summer school for high school students who hadfailed two or more courses and were potential dropouts. We served a totalof 45,000 students last summer - many of them potential dropouts in need oftuition free admission - yet the bottom line is that we were financiallyunable to serve all of the students in need of tuition free summer school.

Today, with state edrzation reform funding at the core, we begin asummer school session that is one of the largest and most comprehensivesessions ever offered in the Chicago public schools. Today, we begin oursecond consecutive free summer school program for high school students, butonce again, we are in the predicament of having to stretch limited dollarsas far as they will go. Unfortunately this summer, those dollars will notbe going as far as they should in offering remedial and retention programsfor all of the students who experience failure in the classroom and aremost likely to drop out...in providing skills enhancement programs to helpall of our students keep pace with their studies and to progress.

Mr. Chairman, certainly funds from H.R. 3042 would help us provide asummer school experience for more of our students who desperately need it.

State reform funds have been very helpful to us throughout this schoolyear. Approximately $100 million was made available in school districtsthroughout the state. Of that amount, a total of $29.2 million was commit-ted by the state for new and expanded education programs in Chicago'sschools. And many of these programs have direct bearing on our efforts toseriously address the dropout problem, both at the elementary and secondaryschool levels.

We received $120,000 to implement a drug and substance abuse preventionprogram...$210,000 to provide extra classes, counseling and tutors forHispanic students likely to drop out of school...5725,000 for a truancyprevention program...two and a quarter million dollars for an alternativeeducational program for potential dropouts... and $5 million to providescreening and educational programs for almost 3,000 preschool children...three to five year old "at risk" children who will be provided educationalenrichment to prepare them for entering first grade.

-more-

107

103

-3-

We are particularly proud that we received more than twelve and a halfmillion dollars in state reform funding to implement a Reading ImprovementProgram in selected elementary schools to combat early failure which toooften leads to dropping out.

State reform monies have been very useful...this year...but becauseof current state revenue projections, the future iiElou y for continueddollars to support education reform throughout the state of Illinois.

Thus, we stand at the crossroads. Will we have the necessary resourcesto expand our efforts to reenergize our schools and provide programs andservices to meet the myriad challenges we have begun to address?

The attack on the dropout problep will be effective only with the fullcooperation and support of government, business and inchistry, colleges anduniversities, parents and concerned citizens...continuing our crusade foreducation reform. It is an urgent problem. We cannot afford to stagnateor regress.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation which I endorse on behalf of the Chicagopublic schools...which has been endorsed by the Council of Great CitySchools...will keep us moving forward, expanding our attack on the dropoutproblem by giving us additional funds with which to institute more effectivedropout identification mechanisms, and to design and implement prevention,outreach, and reentry activities that will complement those we are alreadyimplementing.

Rest assured that every cent will be used to accomplish this...tocontinue moving forward in the struggle to win each battle in our war onthe dropout problem.

As I relinquish this platform, I make special note of the courage,foresight, and leadership of Congressman Charles Hayes, who has broughtnational attention to this urgent national problem. I join my colleaguesacross the nation in thanking Congressman Hayes, the bill's cosponsors,and this committee.for placing the education of our youth on the frontburner of national priorities.

Thank you.

# # #

1 n

104

STATEMENT OF DAN DIXON, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT,STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. DIXON. Thank you, Congressman Hayes, as well as Congress-man Hawkins.

On a personal note, my only sadness is that our mayor will notlet us vote in two districts, but I only get to vote for CongressmanHayes, and we have watched you for many years. Welcome to Chi-cago.

We at the State board of education are glad to take this opportu-nity to come before you today and testify in support of this bill,and with me this morning, I brought a program expert fromSpringfield, Mr. Tom Grayson, and before I turn the mike over toTom and give you our official testimony, just let me add that oortestimony will give you somewhat of a State perspective on thedropout problem and tied into last year's educational reform taxand talk about the future direction that we see it will take and alsowhy we support this legislation.

Tom.

STATEMENT OF TOM GRAYSON, PROGRAM EXPERT, STATEBOARD OF EDUCATION, SPRINGFIELD, IL

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Dan.In June 1983, Governor Thompson of Illinois released a report on

his task force on children, entitled "An Investment in an Independ-ent Future, An Agenda for Children and Youth." In that report, heidentified children at risk as being those living in poverty, thoseborn and growing up without a chance to be healthy, those livingin single parent families without necessary supports, those that arealienated from themselves, their families and their schools, andthose growing to maturity without the skills necessary for furthereducation or for the work force, and those children that are hurtby violence and crime, and those who cannot live at home.

Well, the State board of education shares the belief that theseare the same children who continually make disproportionate con-tributions to the statistics on truancy and dropping out of school.

In Illinois, the State board of education collects data from theschool districts in an annual report. The number of truants report-ed in 1982-83 school year was 101,600 and some odd children; 1983-84, 96,000; and 1984-85, there were over 103,000 children that werereported as being truant.

The number of chronic truants, and chronic truants are definedin Illinois as those children missing 10 out of 40 consecutive schooldays, the numbers were reported for 1982-83 as 18,000; for 1983-84,21,000; and 1984-85 as 20,000. All together, over 120,000 kids are1.,ruants or chronic truants annually in Illinois.

Last year, a legislative task force on Hispanic student dropoutswas conducted in Illinois to study the issue that you are now con-fronted with. In testimony provided by the State board of educa-tion, it was estimated that an attrition rate, and by attrition Imean from freshman, how many entering into high school. at thefreshman level and graduate 4 years later, the attrition rate, theestimates in the city of Chicago by race were: for whites, 25.6 per-

109

105

cent drop out; blacks, 56.9 percent drop out; Hispanics, 47.9 percentdrop out; American Indians, 40 percent drop out.

Statewide, the estimates were: whites 12.6 percent; blacks, 47.4percent; Hispanics, 39.4 percent; and American Indians, 30.6 per-cent. In the high school beyond study, by Samuel Pang, Illinois par-ticipated in that study with responses from over 100,000 sopho-mores, and the State board of education analyzed those responsesand tried to determine why our kids dropping out of school, askingthese sophomores.

In 1980 and 1982, we went back and found those sophomores andmany of those had dropped out and here is what they said in termsof why they dropped out of school. The major, most cited, reasonwas poor grades and school achievements. Fifty percent of themales in Illinois reported that, and 49 percent of the females re-ported that.

On a comparative basis, looking at it nationally, from the nation-al statistics, 36 percent of the males reported that as being thereason for dropping out, and only 30 percent of the females. So, Illi-nois has a much higher rate in terms of what the kids are testify-ing as to why they drop out in terms of poor grades.

The other causes, school-related problems, were things likeschool was not for me, could not get along with teachers and expul-sion or being suspended, and family-related problems, particularlypregnancy, was considered to be the major reasons for leavingschool.

Thirty-one percent of the females in Illinois reported pregnancyas being the major reason why they dropped out of school. An in-teresting statistic in this regard, too, is that the young women donot have career goals beyond high school. They do not seem tohave long-term range or plans for their life and for their career ex-pectations. Nineteen percent of the females reported that they hadplans for marrying, and 13 percent of the females said that theywanted to support a family when they fmished high school.The other area forthat was reported by kids for leaving schoolhad to do with environment-related problems. Job offers were citedas being the major reason by both males and females for the drop-ping out of school. Sixteen percent of the males reported I have ajob, I want a job, and 10 percent of the femala3 did the same.

Educational reform in Illinois began last year with the legisla-ture appropriating $10 million to support programs under the Tru-ants Alternative and Optional Education Program. The TruantsAlternative Programs focus on prevention; that is, diagnostic andassessment, remediation and intervention services. An OptionalEducation Program provides a variety ofan array of programs,such as GED, career counseling or tutoring, for dropouts or for atrisk students.

In Chicago alone, out of the $10 million, $750,000 was awarded tothe Chicago public schools and the bureau of school attendance,and they offer what we consider to be an exemplary truancy pre-vention initiative, working with the elementary schools, the publicschool buildings in Chicago. Also, the American Indian Center re-ceived a Truants Alternative Program grant for a $100,000.

The other division of the Chicago public schools comes out of theoffice of field superintendent for high schools, and they received

106

$2.25 million to provide an array of optional educational service forat risk kids, and Dr. Byrd mentioned a couple of those programs, Ibelieve, and the reentry centers and so forth.

Also, $1.25 million goes to the city colleges of Chicago, who oper-ate two alternative schools and subcontract with community serv-ice agencies that are dealing with dropouts and at risk kids. Forexample, the alternative school network was mentioned by themayor. We have association house and a network for youth serv-ices, working predominantly in the Hispanic communities, andAustin Career Center, and a partial grant for the Native AmericanIndians.

There are other shortcomings that have been mentioned havingto do with data collection and limitations and defmitions of tru-ants, chronic truants, and dropouts, and the State board of educa-tion is currently trying towe are working with the legislature inrevising the defimitions so we can collect accurate information onthe scope of the problem.

Congressman Hayes, your bill, H.R. 3042, as viewed by the Stateboard of education, is precisely on target in your purpose, intentand in scope, urban as well as rural and on target with reachingout for at risk kids and dropout kids by identifying, recruiting andtargeting services specifically for their needs.

The other two areas that you have talked about for this bill towork on, having to do with data collection so that we can under-stand the problem, and to focus the resources where it is going towork, and also to determine why kids are not in school, so that wecan target the services to address those particular needs.

Again, the State board of education is supportive and will workwith you in any way that you deem fit.

Thank you.[The prepared statement of Tom Grayson followsl

107

TESTIMONY TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARYAND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ON H.R. 3042, THE DROPOUT

PREVENTION AND REENTRY ACT OF 1985

8y: Illinois State Board of EducationJune 23, 1986

In June 1983, Governor James Thompson of Illinois released the final reportof his Task Force on Children titled, "Investment in an Independent Future:An Agenda for Children and Youth." The report identified children at-riskand most in need of state services in Illinois as:

Those living in poverty...Those born and growing up without a chance to be healthy...

- Those living in single parent familis without necessary supports...Those alienated from themselves, their families, their schools...Those growing to maturity without skills necessary for furthereducation or for the work force...

- Those touched by violence and crime...- .Those who cannot live at home...

We share the belief that these are the same children who continually make adisproportionate contribution to the statistics on truancy and school drop-outs. The negative social and economic effects of large numbers of under-educated and therefore underemployed youth and adults are well known.Table 1 displays the number of truants reported by Illinois school districtsto the state and Table 2 displays the number of chronic truants reported.Both tables show data for school years 1982 through 1985.

Table 1

Number of Truants* Reported to the State**

School Year

1982-19831983-19841984-1985

Number of Truants

101,69696,317

103,548

A truant is defined as being absent without valid cause for aschool day or portion thereof.

** Source: Research and Statistics, Illinois State BGerd of Education.

Table 2

Number of Chronic Truants* Reported to the State**

Number ofSchool Year Chronic Truants

1982-1983 18,3061983-1984 21,2431984-1985 20,856

* Beginning with the 1982-1983 school year. chronic truancy has beendefined as absent without valid cause for 10 out of 40 consecutiveschool days.

** Source: Research and Statistics, Illinois State Board of Education.

What we know from this data is that the scale of the Illinois problem islarge. More than 120,000 truants and chronic truants are reported to thestate each year in a process subject to gross under-reporting. Otherresearch gives strong indicatton that the greater proportion of dropoutscome from this population.

112

108

Nearly 21% of students who enter high school in Illinois do not graduate.As is the case nationally, the rates are disproportionately higher thanaverage among racial and linguistic minorities: in Chicago alone, more thanhalf of all black students who enter ninth grade do not graduate and similarstatistics describe the situation among Hispanic students. The Chicagoattrition rate estimates given by the Illinois State Board of Education forthe high school class of 1984 by race are: Whites 25.6%; Blacks 56.9%;Hispanics 47.9%; and, American Indians 40.4%. Statewide estimates are:Whites 12.6%; Blacks 47.4%; Hispanics 39.4%; and, American Indian 30.6%.Also, Illinois data collectet on sophomores in the "High School and BeyondStudy" indicate that the state has significantly higher than national drop-out rates for both of its major minority groups.

In the same "High School and Beyond Study," when student profiles of drop-outs were compared with the profiles of students who continued high school,reasons for dropping out became apparent.

1. Poor grades in school were nited more often by Illinois dropoutsthan any other reason given for quitting school.

2. Other school-related problems considered by Illinois male andfemale dropouts to be major reasons for quitting school included:"school was not for me,' 'couldn't get along with teachers," and"expelled or suspended."

3. Family-related problems, particularly pregnancy were consideredmajor reasons for leaving school by female dropouts and, to alesser degree, for male dropouts. Family-related problems includedpregnancy, marriage or plans to marry, and support of a family.

4. Employment-related problems were also cited as major reasons furleaving school in Illinois. Job offers were cieo as a majorreason by both male and female dropouts.

The data suggests that dropouts come from both rural and urban areas and areusually frca low-income or poverty settings, are often from minority groupbackground, have very low basic academic skills, and have numrous family-related problems.

Educational Reform in Illinois

In its 1985 package of reform legislation, Illinois made major provision forits students at-risk. Legislation authorized the Truants Alternative andOptional Education Program for at-risk students and dropouts and providing$10 million for its implementation. The truants' alternative_programm focuson prevention, i.e., diagnosis, intervention and remediation services andhave many program elements which include: diagnosis/assessment of at-risLstudents, chronic truants; life skills education (kindergarten through 12thgrade); tutoring programs; counseling services; parent education; staffdevelopment on truancy prevention and intervention strategies; and others.The optional education progracs are targeted to serve at-risk studentsand/or dropouts up to and including age 21. An array of programs areprovided, e.g., general education development (G.E.D.) programs; eveningschools; adult education programs; vccational training; alternative schools;parenting programa; survival skill program; and tutoring programs.

Awareness of the severity of chronic truancy and dropping out of school waspresent in applications requesting state assistance in response to a solici-tation for project proposals. The number of requests (109 proposalsrequesting more than $26 million) vastly exceeded the $10 million avail-able. During this initial educational retorm year, 60 of these applicantsreceived grant awards of which 27 are administered through educationalservice regions, 26 through local school districts, six through communitycollege districts and one through a private agency. The range of grantawards is shaon below.

Truants' Alternative ProgramsOptional Education Programs

li3

Smallest Largest MedianGrant Grant Grant

$40,000$20,000

$ 750,000$2,250,000

$90,000$90,000

109

While specific counts are not yetinvolved. the follmeing data reflectservice region involvement.

Truants' Alternative Programs -

-Optional Education Programs

available on students and personnellocal school district and educational

494 school districts in 29 Education-al Service Regions

249 school districts in 23 Education-al Service 7egions

The Truants' Alternative Programs focus on prevention, i.e., diagnosis,intervention and remediation services. The following program components arecharacteristic of the range of services offered through the 22 fundedprograms.

Diagnosis/assessment of at-risk students, chronic truants anddropouts

Life skills education (kindergarten through 12th grade)Tutoring programsAttendance incentive programsParent education and school involvementStaff development on truancy prevention and intervention strategiesStudent counseling servicesCoamunit:. awareness and involvementFamily counseling and home visitationWork related approaches/strategies

Student support groups/positive peer involvementCase review teams

The optional education programs are targeted to at-risk students ana/ordropouts up to and including age 21. An arra), of prograns are providedthrough the 38 approved Optional Education Programs. They are:

General educatica development (G.E.D.) programs to assist dropoutsin receiving a high school equivalent certificate.

Evening schools to accomodate those students who have difficultyattending school during regular school hours due to family problemsor for students who must work to help in supporting the family.Adult education programs for older (age 18.21) students to finishhigh school or learn new skills for upgrading their calibre of life.Vocational training for pre-vocational/vocational upgrading of workskills.

Alternative schools for students who are not benefiting from themode of instruction, school environment or learning style offeredin the general curricula.

Community college courses to assist high school students in areasnot affered in the world of work, e.g., how to apply for work andhow to hold a job.

Parenting programs for pregnant teenagers to keep both teen parentsin school and to teach pre-natal/post-natal care as well as nutri-tion in addition to regular school courses.Survival skill programs for students who have taken on so muchpersonal responsibility they cannot complete their regular schoolprogram.

Tutoring programs to assist students who have fallen behind or needextra help to keep pace.

Internships to assist students in developing self esteem throughpartnerships with citizens within the community.

Other Shortcomings

In the 1984 State Board of Education report titled, "Truancy in IllinoisPublic Schools," several concerns regarding truancy prevention, interventionand remediation were identified. They were:

1. Schools do not have policies which outline supportive servicesavailable to truants and chronic truants.

2. The state's primary interest is and'should. be in chronic truants.

14

110

3. The legal definition of chronic truancy does not have an educationccmponent.

4. The impact of the Truants' Alternative Programs has been restrictedto those areas where state funds have been provided.

5. Reporting systems for truancy are not standardized, nor do theyfollow through a single entity to the state. This results inunreliable information for policy formulation and legislativeaction at the state level and a virtually impossible situation forprogram planning at the regional level.

The 1984 State Board of Education report also made the following conclusions:

1. The state's interest in an educated citizenry is of such intensitythat it properly compels attendance at school. In support of thisinterest, the state should provide an appropriate ramework ofsanctions and services to treat invalid st.ident particu-larly those that are chronic in nature and result,1 h diminishededucational progress. 61

2. The definitions of "truancy" and "chronic truancy' provided in TheSchool Code are inadequate and inappropriate.

3. The full extent to which truancy and chronic truancy are problemsin Illinois is not known, since the available data are impreciseand the methods for collecting such data are badly in need ofimprovement.

4. Althcugh it is clear that the attendance of those students who arechronic truants can be improved through the provision of variousservices, such services are not systematically available across thestate.

Concerns that datP collection on dropouts is imprecise due to variobs inter-pretations of statutes and reporting practices by school districts were alsoexpressed in the report of the Illinois State Task Force on Hispanic StudentDropouts submitted to the Illinois General Assembly, March 1985.

There is a need for a uniform definition of a dropout. Thedefinition must include all students from kindergarten throughtwelfth grade who have left the rEgular schooling process withoutreceiving a high school diploma. Current recording and reportingpractices minimize the accurate magnitude of the State ofIllinois dropout rate. In reality, the dropout problem is akindergarten through twelfth grade problem.

Due to a htstorY of misrepresenting the accurate magnitude of theState of Illinois dropout rate, there is a need to correctinaccuracies and inconsistencies in recording and reportingdropout data by school districts. For example, the Task Forcefound that the Chicago Public School System reported an 8% drop-out rate, utereas, the State Board of Education reported a 48Zdropout rate in Chicago for the same class.

These shortcomings are critical. Documenting the nature and magnitude ofthe dropout problem is important in establishing resources for combating theproblem. If we are to create effective programs, we will need to collectaccurate, reliable data. Currently. the State Board of Education is workingwith the General Assembly to revise statutes concerning definitions of adropout and a chronic truant in order to ameliorate this shortcoming.

The Illinois SzatE Board of Education supports H.R. 3042, the DropoutPrevention and Reentry Act of 1985, and stands ready to provide.assistancewhen called upon to do so.

DLJ 6196k

1 1 5

111

A PROFILE OF ILLINOIS DROPOUTS

Illinois State Board of Education

Department of Planning, Research and EvaluationResearch and Statistics Section

August, 1985

Walter W. Naumer, Jr. Ted SandersChairman State Superintendent of Education

112

Foreword

This paper discusses the behavioral and attitudinal differences betweenstudents who became high school dropouts and students who remained inschool. Sophomores from Illinois who participated in the aational HighSchool and Beyond Study were interviewed in 1980. Their responses werecompiled into a profile of student behavioral and attitudinalcharacteristics. A follow up study in 1982 identified those sophomores whoeventually dropped out of school.

This report was prepared by Gerald Arnold, Research and Statistics Section,Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. The interpretations andconclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position orpolicy of the State Board of Education.

Ted rsSc

zrQ)6:44De.640

State uperintendent of Education

iii

113

Table Of Contents

Foreword iii

Introduction1

Methods of Oetermining Estinates 2

Findings 3

Student Characteristics 3Reasons for Dropping Out 4School-Related Problems of Dropouts 7Family Characteristics and Expectations of Dropouts 11

Summary 15

References 16

114

Table of Tables

1. Gender and Ethnic Characteristics of the 1980 IllinoisSophomore Class 4

2. Reasons for Dropping Out 6

3. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Grade Average 7

4. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Composite Test Scoresfrom the High School and Beyond 7

5. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Number of Days Absentfrom School 8

6. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Number of Days Late toSchool 8

7. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Proportion ofClasses Cut 9

8. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Expressed Interest inSchool 9

9. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Expressed Satisfactionwith Education 10

10. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Amount of Time Spent onHomework 10

11. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Proportion ofSuspensions or Probations 11

12. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Educational Attainmeitof Father 12

13. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Educational Attatimentof Mother

12.

14. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Family Income 13

15. Comparison of Students and Dropoutl by Age Expected to HaveFirst Child 14

16. Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Age Expected to Marry. . 14

vii

115

Introduction

In 1980, a representative sample of Illinois sophomores participated in thenational High S&mol and Beyond Study. These students were interviewed andtested so that a national profile of sophomores could be constructed. In1982, participants in the 1980 survey were contacted again. Someparticipants had become high school dropouts. When the stydent profiles ofdropouts were compared with the profiles of students who continued highs:hool, differences in attitudinal and behavioral characteristics wereobserved. The purpose of this report is to describe these differences sothat a better understanding of at-risk youth could be developed.

This report describes risk factors associated with the 1980 Illinoissophomores who dropped out of school before the spring of 1982. The sampleof dropouts in the High School and Beyond Study included three groups.

1. Participants in the 1980 sophomore survey identified by local schooladministrators as dropouts according to the following criteria:a) student was absent from school 20 or more consecutive days, andb) student planned not to return to school.

2. Participants in the 1980 sophomore survey identified by schooladministrators as school attenders, but who identified themselves asdropouts during the 1982 follow-up survey.

3. Nonparticipants to the 1980 sophomore survey who met the dropoutcriteria for participants in group 1.

The sources for this report include Illinois sophomore responses to theSophomore Questionnaire of the High School and Beyond Study, The SophomoreTest Booklet for the High School and Beyond study, and sophomore dropoutresponses to the First Follow -u estfonnaire of the 1980 Sophomore Cohort(Not Currently in g Sc oo ese studies were un.e. .y e NationaCenter for Education Statistics under a contract with the National OpinionResearch Center in Chicago, Illinois. This paper will refer to theSophomore Questionnaire as the "Sophomore" survey and to the First Follow-upQuestionnaire as the "Follow-Up" survey (NORC, 1980, 1982).

1

116

Methods of Determining Estimates

Survey results in this paper were based upon weighted responses. Eachsurvey respondent represented a particular subgroup within the generalpopulations of sophomores and dropouts. Each response was multiplied by aset of constants, called weights, so that the cumulative tabulation of thesamples could be used to estimate population totals or other parameters suchas means (NORC, 1983).

The Illinois sophomore sample from the Sophomore survey of the High Schooland Beyond Study numbered 1,950. The responses were weighted to represent195,451 sophomores. This was the estimated total sophomore enrollment forIllinois public and nonpublic high schools in the spring of 1980. Theactual enrollment of Illinois sophomores in 1980 was 196,036 as reported bythe Illinois State Board of Education.

Respondents to the Sophomore sunny were also included in the Follow-upsurvey. A portion of these responses were weighted, using base-yearweights, to represent an estimated number of sophomores who eventually woulddrop out of school by the spring of 1982. These 166 initial respondentswere weighted to represent 25,800 individuals.

In general, a two-step process was used to establish response weights. Thefirst step was the calculation of a preliminary weight. Those were basedupon the inverse of the probabilities of selectton through the variousstages of the sampling process. The second step was a weight used to adjustfor nonresponse. Questions regarding the details of the weight assignmentprocess used in the Sophomore survey and the Follow-up survey should beaddressed to the National Opinicn Research Center in Chicago, Illinois.

2

4 21

117

Findings

Student Characteristics

This section describes the sex and racial-ethnic composition of dropoutsfrom the 1980 Illinois sophomore class. The students identified as dropoutsleft school between the spring of 1980 and the spring of 1982. Illinoisdropouts rates for the student characteristics as compared with nationalfindings (Peng, 1982) are summarized in Table 1.

An estimated 13.2% of the 1980 Illinois sophomore class dropped out ofschool between 1980 and 1982. This percentage was slightly less than thenation-wide estimate of '13.7% (Peng,.1982).

Over one-half of the dropouts were females. However, male studentsproportionately were more likely to drop out than female students, 14.2%male vs. 10.7% female. The sex differential in the dropout rates forIllinois was greater than that reported nationally (U.S.: males 14.7% vs.fesales 12.6%).

Dropout rates from the sophomore to senior year for Hispanic and Blackstudents in Illinois were the highest among the five major racial-ethnicgroups. Hispanic students had a 25.9% dropout rate and Black students had a24.8% dropout rate in Illinois. The Illinois dropout rates for these groupswere substantially greater than rates reported nation-wide (U.S.: Hispanic.18.0% and Black, 17.0%).

The dropout rate for Illinois students of American Indian or Alaskan Nativedescent was 15.22. White students had a 10.2% dropout rate. No Asian orPacific Islander students in Illinois were identified as dropouts from the1980 Sophomore survey. From the 1982 Follow-up survey, however, some Asianmales were identified as high school dropouts. These students math up lessthan 1/2 of 1% of the Illinois dropout population identified in tneFollow-up survey. The Illinois dropout rates for these groups were lowerthan the national rates (U.S.: American Indian/Alaskan Native, 29.2%;White, 12.2%; and Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.1%).

118

Table 1 Gender and Ethnic Characteristics of the 1980 Illinois SophomoreClass

% ofCharacteristic Illinois Sophomores

Percent of SophomoresWho Dropped Outin

Illinoisin

Sex

Female 50.6% 10.7% 12.6%Male 49.4% 14.2% 14.7%

Race/Ethnicity

White,non-Hispanic 76.7% 10.2% 12.2z

Black 14.4% 24.8% 17.0%Hispanic 6.2% 25.9% 18.0%Asian American 1.3% ,0.0% 3.1%American Indian/ 0.5% 15.2% 29.2%Alaskan NativeEthnicity linknown 0.9% 14.1% Net available

All Sophomores 100.0% 13.2% 13.6%

Note: The estimated number of studentsClass was 195,451.

*National data from Peng (1982).

in the 1980 Illinois Sophomore

Reasons for Dropping Out

Dropouts from the 1983 Illinois sophomore class were asked in 1982 theirreasons for quitting school. This section describes the Illinois responsesto this question and compares them to dropout responses collectednation-wide (Peng, 1982). For comparative purposes. a major reason terquitting school is defined as a reason given by 10% or more of the male orfemale respondents or both. Respondents were allowed to mport more thanone reason for quitting school.

Poor grades in school were cited more often by Illinois dropouts than anyother reason given for quitting school (males, 50% aLd females, 49%). Poorgrades were also cited more often by Illinois dropouts than reported nation-wide (U.S.: males, 36% and females, 30%).

Other school-related problems considered by Illinois male and femaledropouts to be major reasons for quitting school included: 'school was notfor me" (33% male, 28% female) and "couldn't get along with teachers (26%

4

119

male, 11% female). Being expelTed or suspended from school was considered amajor reason for quitting school by male dropouts, but not by femaledropouts (18% male, 5% female). These reasons were also cited by dropoutsnationally in siailar proportim as shown in Table 2.

Family-related problems, pzrticularly pregnancy, were considered majorreasons for leaving school by female dropouts and, to a lesser degree, formale dropouts. Family-related problems iruluded pregnancy (females only31%), marriage or plans to marry (fenales 19%, males 5%), and support of afmAily (females 7%, males (3:i. Though dropouts nationally citedfamily-related problems as major reasons for leaving school, female dropoutsstressed marriage over pregnancy as a primary school problem (U.S. females:pregnancy, 23% and marriage, 31%). Table 2 details the family-relatedreasons for quitting school.

Employment-related problems were also cited as major reasons for leavingschool in Illinois. Job offers were cited as a major reason by both maleend female dropouts (males 16%, females 103). Sixteen percent of the maledropouts gave a desire to enter the military as a major reason for quittingschool. Only job offers were considered a major employment-related reasonfor quitting school nationally (U.S.: males 27%, females 11%). Data areshown in Table 2.

120

Table 2 Reasons for Dropping Out

Reasons for Dropping Out Illinois Dropouts U.S. Dr000uts*kale remale kale remale

School-related

1. Poor grades 50% 49% 36% 30%2. School not for me 33% 28% 35% 31%3. Couldn't get along with

teachers 26% 11% 21% 10%4. Expelled or suspended 18% 5% 13% 5%5. Didn't get desired progrmn 6% 2% 8% 5%6. Moved too far from school 0% 5% 2% 5%7. School tao dangerous 1% 2% 3% 2%

Family-related

1. Pregnancy N/A 31% N/A 23%2. Married or planned to 5% 19% 7% 31%3. Had to support family 13% 7% 14% 8%

Employment-related

1. Offered job 16% 10% 27% 11%2. Wanted to enter military 16% 0% 7% 1%

Peer-related

1. Couldn't get along withstudents 1% 3% 5% 6%

2. Friends were dropping out 2: 1% 7% 2%

Health-related

1. Illness or disability 0% 6% 5% 7%

Other reasons

1. Wanted ta travel 5% 7% 7%

Note: Respondents to First Follow-up Questionnaire could indicate more thanone reason for leaving school.

*National data from Peng (1982).

6

121

School-Related Problems of Dropouts

Many Illinois dropouts cited school-related problems as major reasons forleaving school before graduation. This section compares sophomores who lefthigh school with sophomores wilo continued high school with respect tostudent grade averages, achievement, school attendance, student discipline,and student attitudes toward school.

Sophomores who quit school generally were lower achievers academically thansophcoores rhio continued high school. Table 3 shows that most dropouts,52%, reported performing below a C average academically while the majorityof continuing students (71%) reported a grade average above the C level.Twenty-six percent of the dropouts reported grades above the C level.

Table 3 Caparison of Students and Dropouts by Grades Reported in School

Illinois Sophomore PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 of Reported GradesEstimated N 195,461 Cohorts in High School

PercentPer

Level

Students wilo remained 86% a) More than C'sin seiool until 6/82 b) C's

c) Less than C's

Students who dropped 14% a) More than C'sout of school before b) C's6/82 c) Less than C's

71%17%12%

26%22%52%

Scores from a ccmposite reading, math, and vocabulary test, included as partof the 1980 Sophccore survey, showed that 85% of the students who droppedout scored at or below the test median, while 45% of Cie continuing studentsscored at this level (shown in Table 4).

Table 4 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Composite Test Scores fromthe High School and Beyond Survey

Illinois Sophomore PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 ofEstimated N 195,461 Cohorts

Math and ReadingTest Scores

PercentPer

Level

Students who remainedin school until 6/82

Students who droppedout of schoolbefore 6/82

86% a) equal to or less thanmedian score

b) greater than median score

14% a) equal to or less thanmedian score

b) greater than median score

45%

55%

85%

15%

7

122

Absenteeism and tardiness from school were more prevalent among sophomoreshto quit school than among sophomores who continued school. Table 5 showsthat 61% of the students hto dropped out were absent 3 or more days duringthe 1979 fall-semester as opposed to 26% of the continuing students. Table6 shows dropouts were also more likely to be late to school 3 or more days(dropouts. 42%; continuing students, 22%). Most dropouts, 58%, reportedcutting classes as compared to 22% of the continuing students (shown inTable 7). These findings suggest that before students quit school, theybecome less likely to attend school.

Table 5 Comparison of Students and DroDouts by Number of Days Absent fromSchool between the Beginning of School Last Fall (1979) andChristmas Vacation

Illinois Sophomore Percent - PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 of DaYs Absent PerEstimated N s 19E,461 Cohorts from School Level

Students who remained 86% a) None 43%in school until 6/82 b) 1-2 days 31%

c) 3 or more days 26%

Students who dropped 14% a) None 17%out of school before b) 1-2 days 2rt6/82 c) 3 Or more days 61%

Table 6 Comparison of Students and DroDouts by Number of Da) Late toSchool between the Beginning of School Last Fall (1979) andChristmas Vacation

Illinois Sophomore Percent PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 of DaYs Late PerEstimated N s 195,461 Cohorts to School LeVel

Students who remained 86% a) None saxin school until 6/82 b) 1,2 days 26%

c) 3 or more days 224

Students who dropped 14% a) None VI;out of school before b) 1,2 days 25%6/82 c) 3 or more days 40%

8

123

Table 7 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Proportion of Classes Cut

Illinois Sophomore Percent PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 of PerEstimated N = 195,461 Cohorts Did Student Cut Classes? Level

Students who remained 86% a) True 22%in school until 6/82 b) False 78%

-

Students who dropped 14% a) True 58%out before 6/82 b) False 42%

Increased absenteeism and tareir2ss may imply a lack of interest in ordissatisfaction with school and school wort. Forty-five percent of thedropouts reported not being interested in school as opposed to 21% of thecontinuing students (shown in table 8). The majority of dropouts, 68%,reported being dissatisfied with their education as opposed to 32% of thecontinuing students (shown An table 9). With regard to homework, (shown inTable 10), 65% of the dropouts reported spending less than 3 hours per weelfon homework, while 60% of the continuing students reported spending 3 ormore hours per week on homework. These findings were consistent withdropout reports (Table 2) that a major reason for quitting school was adislike for being in school.

Table 8 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Expressed Interest in School

Illinois Sophomore Percent PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 of Student's Interest PerEstimated N 195,461 Cohorts in School Level

Students who remained 86% a) Interested in school 79%in school until 6/82 b) Not interested in schol 21%

Students who dropped 14% a) Interested in school 55%out of school before b) Not interested in school 45%6/82

9

124

Table 9 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Expressed Satisfaction withEducation

Illinois SophomoreCohorts Spring, 1980Estimated N 195,461

Percentof

CohortsStudent Satisfaction

with Education

PercentPer

Level

Students who remainedin 3chool until 6/82

Students who droppedout of school before6/82

86% a) Satisfied with wayeducation is going

b) Not satisfied with wayeducation is going

14% a) Satisfied with wAYeducation is going

b) Not satisfied with waYeducation is going

68%

32%

32%

68%

Table 10 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Amount of Time Spent onHomework

111Inois Sophomore PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 ofEstimated N = 195,461 Cohorts

Time Spenton Homework

Levels

PercentPer

Level

Students who remainedin school until 6/82

Students who droppedout of school before6/82

86% a) Less than 3 hrs/4eekb) 3 or more hrs/weekc) None Assigned

14% a) Less than 3 hrs/weekb) 3 or more hrs/weekc) None Assigned

39%60%1%

65%34%1%

Sophomores who eventually dropped out of school were more likely to reportbeing subject to disciplinary actions at school than sophomores whocontinued school. Thirty-one percent of the dropouts reported beingsuspended or put on schoo1 probation. In contrast, only 8% of thecontinuing students reported being suspended or put on probation (shown intable 11). Though only male dropouts reported suspension as a major reasonfor quitting school, this factor may also be associated with dropoutsreporting an inability to get along with teacher . Teachers are usually thefirst disciplinary contact a student would encounter at school.

10

125

Table 11 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Proportion of Suspensions orProbations

Illinois Sophomore Percent PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 of Students Suspended Per

Estimated N 195,461 Cohorts or on School Probation Level

Students who remained 86% a) True 8%in school until .6/82 b) False 92%

Students who dropped 14% a) True 31%out of school before b) False 69%6/82

Family Characteristics and Expectations of Dropouts

In this section, sophomores who eventually dropped out are compared withtheir classmates who continued school with respect to the educationalattainment of parents, family income, marital status, and marriage/child-bearing expectations.

The 1980 Sophomore survey included questions regarding the educationalattainment of the student's parents as well as the family incomes ofstudents. These indices provide a general social-economic measure forcomparative purposes. These indices along with parental occupations werescaled to form the SES (social-economic scale) index developed for the HighSchool and Beyond Study (NORC, 1982).

The parents of students who dropped out of school generally had lowereducational attaiment levels than the parents of students who continuedschool. Tables 12 and 13 show the educational attainment levels ofstudents' fathers and mothers, respectively. A major difference in fathers'educational attainment for dropouts and continuing students was that fathersof dropouts were less likely to have had more than a high school education(dropouts' fathers, 20%; continuing students' fathers, 37%). A noticeabledifference between the student groups with respect to mothers' educationalattainment was that mothers of dropouts were les; likely to have completedhigh school (dropouts' mothers, 29%; continuing students' mothers, 13%).

11

63-276 0 - 86 - 5

130

126

Table 12 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Educational Attainment ofFather

Illinois SophomoreCohorts Percent

Spring, 1980 ofEstimated N a 195,461 Cohorts

Educational Attainmentof Father

PercentPer

Level

Students who remainedin school until 6/82

Students who droppedout of school before6/82

86% a) Lessb) Highc) Mored) Doese) Does

14% a) Less.b) Highc) Mored) Doese) Does

than high schoolSchoolthan high schoolnot live withnot know

than high schoolSchoolthan high schoolnot live withnot kniw

14%

27%37%6%

16%

18%26%20%16%20%

Table 13 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Educational Attainment ofMother

Il 1 i noi s Sophomore

CohortsSp ri ng 1980

;Estimated N 195,461

Percentof

CohortsEducational Attainment

of Mother

PercentPer

Level

Students who remained 86% a) Less than hIch schoolin school until 6/82 b) High School

c) More than high schoold) Does not live withe) Does not know

Students who dropped 14% a) Less than high schoolout of school before b) High School6/82 c) More than high school

d) Does not live kithe) Does not know

13%41%32%1%

'13%

29%31%15%

3%22%

The family income of dropouts was generally lower than the family income ofstudents who mmudned in school. Using a family income of $16,000 forcomparative purposes, 46% of the dropouts reported incomes below thisfigure. About 26% of the continuing students reported incomes below thisfigure (shown in table 14). Parental educational attainment and familyincomes suggest that the social-economic conditions were less favorable fordropouts than for continuing students.

12

131

127

Table 14 Comparison of.Students and Dropouts by Family Income

Illinois Sophomore PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 ofEstimated N.,195,461 Cohorts

Family IncomeLevels

PercentPer

Level

Students who remained 86% a) below $16,000 26%in school until 6/82 b) above $16,000 74%

-

Students who dropped 14% a) below $16,000 46%out of school b) above $16,000 54%before 6/82

In spring 1980, 2.9% of the students who eventually dropped out had reportedhaving their first child. In contrast, 0.3% of the continuing studentsreported having their first child. The incidence of first-time birth fordropouts was nearly 10 times greater than that of the continuing studentsbefore the dropouts left school. By 1982, 8.8% of the male dropouts and34.9% of the female students reported having one or more children.

Further, students who eventually dropped out generally expected to beginchild rearing at an earlier age than Continuing students.. Table 15 showsthat 29% of the dropouts expected to have their first child before age 21,while 13% of the continuing students had this expectation. The higherincidence of first-time birth, the high proportion of female dropouts hlthchildren, and the expectation to begin child rearing at an earlier age areconsistent with dropout reports that pregnancy was a major reason forquitting school in Illinois (Table 2).

13

128

Table 15 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Age Expected to Have FirstChild

Illinois Sophomore PercentCohorts Spring, 1980 of Age Expect to Have

Estimated N 195,461 Cohorts .First Child

PercentPer

Level

Students who remainedin school until 6782

86% a) Less than 21 yrs. oldb) 21 or more yrs. old ,

c) Dces not expect to havechildren

Students who dropped 14%out of school before6/82

NOTE:

a) Less than 21 yrs. oldb) 21 or more yrs. oldc) Does not expect to have

children

13%76%11%

29%56%15%

The number of continuing students who already had first childrenwas estimated tc be 424. The number of dropouts who already hadfirst children was estimated to be 507.

Students who eventually dropped out expected to marry at an earlier age thancontinuing students. Table 16 shows that 53% of the dropohts compared with

; 29% of the continuing students expected to marry before age 21 even though...some continuing students reported being already married. By 1982, 24% of'Ythe female dropouts reported being married while 3% of the male dropoutsreported being married or divorced. No female dropouts reported a maritalstatus of divorced.

Table 16 Comparison of Students and Dropouts by Age Expected to Marry

Illinois SophcmoreCohorts Spring, 1980Estimated N 195,461

Percentof

Cohorts Age Expected to Marry

PercentPer

Level

Students who remainedin school until 6/82

Students who droppedout of school before6/82

86% a) Less than 21 yrs. oldb) 21 or more yrs. oldc) Does not expect to marry

14% a) Less than 21 yrs. oldb) 21 or more yrs. oldc) Does not expect to marry

29%63%7%

53%37%11%

NOTE: The number of continuing students who were already married wasestimated to be 321.

14

43 3

129

Sumary

Consistent with their stated reasons for leaving school, many students facedmajor school-related problems before dropping out. Dropouts were morelikely to report failing academically, being absent or tardy fran school,lacking interest in school, and being subject to disciplinary actions ascompared to students who continued school.

The data presented show that 25% of the Hispanic and Black sophomoreseventually dropped out of school. These students in Illinois had asubstantially greater risk of dropping out than students of otherracial-ethnic characteristics. The Illinois dropout rate for these studentsexceeded the national rates. The differences in dropout rates for male andfemale students in Illinois were greater than that reported nation-wide.

For many dropouts, school-related problems such as poor grades, a dislikefor school, an inability to get along with teachers, and suspension fromschool were given as major reasons for leaving school. Other dropoutsreported economic and social pressures such as pregnancy, marriage, joboffers and family support as major reasons for quitting school. Thesereasons were also cited by dropouts nation-wide, but the emphasis on poorgrades and pregnancy distinguished Illinois dropouts fran the rest of thenational dropout population.

Students in depressed social-economic conditions wmre more likely to dropout than students from families of higher social-economic status. Theparental educational attainment and family incomes of dropouts weregenerally lower than that of continuing students. Dropouts were more likelyto report that their parents had mat graduated from high school.

Family-related problems, particularly pregnancy, were acute for students whoeventually dropped out. Over one-third of the female dropouts interviewedin '1982 reported having one or more children. Teenage pregnancy appears tobe a major reason that female students drop out.

The data presented were not sufficient to conclude that a particular studentwith the previous characteristics would drop out of school, but thesestudent characteristics may serve as warning signals for at-risk youth.

In particulae, these characteristics are poor academic performance, absencefrom school for 3 or more days, lack of high school completion by one orboth parents, and for females, pregnancy before graduation.

15

130

References

National Opinion Research Center. (1980). High School and Beyond,Sn (McGlone Ouestionnai re. (NCES Form 2409-01). Washington, D.C.: NationalCenter for Education statistics.

National Opinion Research Center. (1982). High School and Beyond, 1980Sophomore Cohort (Not Currently in Nigh School) First 1-01 ow-upQuestionnaire. (NCES Form 2409-30C). Washington, D.C.: National Centerfor Education Statistics

National Opinion Research Center. (1982). High School and Beyond 1980Sol:hi:more Cohort First Follow-up (1982): Dala rile U ser s manuat. (NCES83-214) Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statist4cs.

Peng, S. (1983) _High School Dropouts: Descriptive Information frcm theHigh School and Beyoncf(NCES 83-22113) Washington, D.C.: National Centerfor Education Statistics.

DLN/2185h

16

131

Mr. HAYES. Thank you.[Applause.]Mr. HAYES. Do you have anyDr. BYRD. There was one additional concern. When we looked at

the legislation, we thought that it might be expanded to in-clude--

Mr. HAIM. JUSt a moment. I understand people in the back areAng some 3ifficu1ty in hearing. Speak into the mike.Dr. BYRD. Og. There was one other area that we %It we would

like to see you consider as you review this legislation, and that isthe emphases that could receive funds.

We in this Stat have intermediate structures called educationalservice centers, and we would like you to consider them as a possi-ble source to receive these funds because we are now trying to im-plement a lot of educational programs at the regional level, espe-cially as we move around the state.

Mr. HAvEs. I understand, Dr. Byrd, that you have a schedule,and we want to just indicate to you and say to you that we appreci-ate your coming. We understand your busy schedule. So, if youhave somebody that you want to sit in for you to field whateverquestions we might have, we would appreciate it.

Dr. ann. All right. We will do it.Mr. HAYES. MS. Steinhagen.

STATEMENT OF JUDITH STEJNHAGkuS, PRINCIPAL, DuSABLEHIGH SCHOOL

MS. STEINHAGEN. Good morning.I am Judith Steinhagen, the principal of Du Sable High School,

4934 South Wabash Avenue, Chicago, IL.Du Sable is a general high school of approximately 2,000 students,

all black, in a high poverty area on the South Side of Chicago,about four blocks from here. We share many similarities with allbig inner-city high schools with large numbers of poor children,and, so, I speak of the conditions and for the needs of a muchbroader pupil population than just the one at Du Sable High School.

We receive our students primarily from the neighborhood aroundthe school. We have no entrance requirements other than a signedelementary school diploma.

Research tells us that the students most prone to dropping out ofschool are minority males who enter high school overage, beyond14 years of age, and reading below grade level.

An incoming freshman would be expected to score 8.8 on the testadministered in the eighth month of his eighth year. Experiencetells us that the minority females drop out chiefly due to pregnan-cy and/or a lack of child care once the baby is born.

I have included some statistics in my written report that I willnot read to you now, but a child's chance of dropping out whenthey enter high school at age 16 is more than double their chanceof dropping out when they are 14.

The more a student is behind in reading, which comes as no sur-prise, the chances of their dropping out is greater. A student read-ing on grade level has three to four times better chance of succeed-ing to graduation than one reading below.

136

132

Twenty-three schools in Chicago, or approximately 35 percent ofour city schools, reflect a better than 50 percent rate of dropout.Our students at Du Sable, and this would be true, I imagine, atmany big city schools, in our class of 1984, an entering class of 539,346 of them were 1 or 2 years older than they should be.

In 1985, 384 were older than they should be. Over 74 percent ofour students in the freshman class are reading 2 or more yearsbelow grade level, a- d over 60 percent are one or more years olderthan they should be.

Schools nationwide, like ours, where over 50 percent of the stu-dent population did not graduate, are contributing o the seriousproblems of unemployment and the resulting lost taxes, welfarecosts and losses and costs of crime. These problems are and willcontinue to be staggering if intervention strategies that work arenot implemented.

H.R. 3042 strives to address these problems. We need funding todesign programs for current students at risk, for dropout retrieval,for pregnancy prevention, for strengthening skills at the elementa-ry school level, and even for those children who are not being pre-pared for kindergarten. In many poor communities, the dropoutsyndrome begins for children zero and 5 years of age. H.R. 3042 canbe addressed to all of those at risk population.

I thank you for this opportunity to present the big city highschools.

[The prepared statement of Judith Steinhagen follows:]

133

Presented by Judith Steinhagen, Principal of DuSable High School, 4934South Wabaeh Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, to the Subcommittee on Elementary,Setondary and Vocational Education on Monday, June 23, 1986.

DuSable is a general high school of approximately 2000 students, all black,in a high poverty area on the south side of Chicago. We ahare manysimilarities with all big inner city schools with large numbers ofpoor children, and so I speak of the conditions and for the needs of amuch broader pupil population than the sme at DuSable High School.

We receive our students primarily from the neighborhood around the school.We have no entrance requirements other than a signed elementary schooldiploma.

*Research tells us that the students most prone to dropping out of schoolare minority males who enter high school overage (beyond fourteen yearsof age) and reading below grade level. An incoming freshman would beexpacted to score 8.8 on a test administered in the eighth month of hiseighth year. Experience tells us that minority females drop out chieflydue to pregnancy or lack of child care once the baby is born.

*In a study done of the Chicago Public School dropout problem it wasstated that students who enter high school as freshmen are found to dropout at the following rstee:

AKE Dropout Rate14 37.0%15 59.8%16,r 68.8%

A second crucial indicator of high dropout potential is a freshman'sentering reading score. It comes as no surprise to learn that thebetter a student's reading score in eighth grade, the better are his/her chances of graduating high school.

CityWide DateStanine Grade Equivalent Dropout Rate Level

1 0.5 - 4.6 67.8% Below2 E. 3 4.7 L 6.7 49.9% Below

4 6.8 - 8.0 39.3% Below5 8.1 - 9.2 28.0% Normal

6 E. Up 9.3 - 13.9 18.8% Above

Twenty three schools in Chicago, or approximately 35% of our cityschools reflect 51:4 rate of dropout.

Our school records reveal the following characteristics for theFreshman el f 1984 and 1985:

1984 1885I of Students Age Reading I of

15 16 Score4-9 11 2 8.8 - 11.089 40 1 7.8 - 8.7138 81 6 6.8 - 7.7

R .t..1:91 14 below 6.7

Students15Age

1650 14123 48 1

166 95 3

286 201 22625 358 YE

346 384

74.4% of the students in the Freshman clans of 1984 and 72.3% of theclass of 1985 were reading two or more years below grade level when theyentered high cbool. 64.1% of the class of 1984 ware one or more yearsoverage, au Vlre 62.4% of the class of 1985.

Schools, nationvida, like ours where over 50% of the student populationdo not graduates are contributing to the erious problems of unemploymentand the resulting lost taxes, welfare costs and the losses and costsof crime. These problems are, and'will continue to be staggering ifintervention strategies that work are not implemented.

11.R. 3042 strives to address these problems. We need funding to designprograms for current students at risk, for dropout retrieval, forpregnancy prevention, for strengthening skills at the elementary schoollevel and even for those children who are not being prepared for kinder-garten. /n many poor communities the dropout syndrome begins forchildren between 0 and 5 years of age. H.R. 3042 can be addressed to allof those at risk populations.

*Dropouts From the Chicago Public Schools - Chicago Panel on PublicSchool Financm, April, 1985

138

134

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Ms. Steinhagen.My intentions are to visit Du Sable upon conclusion of this hear-

ing in a few minutes.I want to say that I certainly appreciate the show of support that

has been advanced by you as witnesses here, and it has been saidalready, H.R. 3042 is certainly not a cure-all for what is a tragicproblem facing our Nation and the great State of Illinois, but it isat least a beginning. The $50 million a year which has been sug-gested that the Federal Government should provide to promote theprograms is a drop in the bucket to the need.

I am sure that each of you, and I direct this question to you, Dr.Dixon, the mayor of the city indicated the amount of money that isspent on the schools, the urban/suburban schools, compared to theschools in the inner city. Would you care to comment on this prob-lem? It is one that I think we have to recognize does exist.

We live in a society now, and maybe I can just embellish a littlebit, where it is so important that facilities at the high school levelare such that the kids can acquire the kind of education that is sonecessary to be productive citizens in this age of high technology.

I was told, for example, that computers do not exist at manyhigh schools in the inner city or did not exist. Is this true or not?

Dr. BYRD. I will let Dr. Grant speak about the Chicago publicschools, but we know from looking at the suburban schools, whenthe computers do exist in the inner cities, they do not have them inthe quantity or the courses offered, they cannot afford to do that,as we find in some of our suburban high schools.

One of the things we have been doing at the State level is we arecharged by legislation from last year to come up with a new Stateaid form with the intent to try and equalize our State resourcesand funding. We would hope that the Federal Government, as welook historically going back to 1965, and understanding that part ofthis process is to help with the equalization process, not onlyamong States but within States, we look at this as an opportunityto do that as is most Federal legislation in ethication because youdo not have, or we do not as a society attempt to put very much ofour Federal dollars into the educational pie.

We know, for instance, that in no district in this State do Feder-al funds comprise more than 13 percent of total expenditures ofthat district, but, at the same time, in those districts that do re-ceive those Federal funds, they can make a very, very substantialdifference.

So, we would encourage you to use this program as most Federalprograms to equalize and to help us with that process as we try atthe state level to get more equity in our funding because we arewell aware of the disparity between inner city schools and some ofour more affluent suburban neighbors.

Dr. Grant, did you want to respond to that?Dr. GRANT. Well, I would just say that the Federal funds that are

available to us at this point in many funded programs do give usan opportunity to show, for instance, in the Elementary and Sec-ondary School Act, that Federal funds can make a difference forinner city youngsters.

The problem is not computers at the high school level. We dohave some. I think the problem is in numbers. I think with the

139

135

funds that we have available, they are showing that differences canbe made with adequate funding.

Mr. HAYES. Congressman Hawkins?Chairman HAWKINS. The full committee tomorrow morning will

be acting on H.R. 3042, and I am rather confident that we willreport the bill out of the full committee. We will recommend thatit be approved by the House.

The only question that seems to be at odds among the membersof the committeeand this may reflect differences among themembership of the full Houseis the $50 million to begin the pro-gram. It has been said that this program is not only valuable edu-cationally, but that it is also cost-effective, socially desirable, andmorally sound.

However, we anticipate opposition from the administration,again based on the cost of the program itself. The implication ofthe administration is that if those of you at the local level thinkthe program is SO desirable, why is it not possible for you to raisethe money at the State and local levels?

I wonder if any of you would care to comment on the ability oflocal governments in one way or another to fmance these pro-grams, not only this one, but the many other Federal initiativeswhere we are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade the mem-bers of Congress to put the money out behind the bill.

Can the State and local government do it?Dr. BYRD. Well, I NC ould like to comment. One of our problems,

unlike the Federal Government, we cannot go into deficit funding.We are charged to have a balanced budget, and we, just like the

Federal Government, Congressmen, are right in the middle oftrying to get a balance in our economic growth. Illinois' projectedgrowth was supposed to be four percent last year. We did not quiteget to that, even though we are bringing in the Japanese autoplant. We, right now, are right in the middle of legislative debatein Springfield.

We receive more than indicated, and we needed $264 million newjust to maintain the thrust that we started in the educationalreform package of last year. Just to handle it, four percent infla-tionary fee.

Our bureau of budget has indicated that we only have $238 mil-lion available, which is inadequate to fully fund the educationalprogram that we are starting, and if you want to compare us on aFederal perspective, you want $50 million nationwide, we are put-ting in $10 million on this problem right now as a State.

It is always a matter of conflicting goods, and especially at theState level, where our dollars do tend to go more to human servicesthan the Federal dollars go toward, and, in fact, if there was some-thing I would say to address to your colleagues, it might be theidea that perhaps the greatest defense we could have of this Nationis in the strength and well-being of its individuals and not neces-sarily in missiles, but, of course, you hear that argument all thetime.

I would hope that somebody could put it in somewhat of a per-spective that $50 million when spread acrossif you would divideit up among 50 States, that is a million a State, and if we woulddivide that up among per pupils, we are not really talking about a

140

136

lot of money, and as you indicated, Congressman Hawkins, this is ademonstration project.

I would think that what we need to do as we move into educationfunding in all programs, I think this would be palatable to theother members of the committee and the Republicans persuaded tothink in terms of longer than 1 year. I think that if we talk about$50 million this year and let us make some assumptions that itworks, then what will we talk about next year and when we willhave the problem eradicated.

If this is a demonstration system and where does it fit in withthe integration of other Federal programs, where does it fit ip withState and local programs, so that the thrust of all programs can betied together so people like Dr. Grant do not have to worry abouttrying to make things fit when he has got the problem of trying tomake all programs operate in one school system, and I think iatthis program integration and the actual benefits of the study of asuccessful demonstration project and how will we, say, down theline going to keep those things that we learned, keep thein andhave them come to fruition in the normal day-to-day operations ofall Schools.

I think that is one of the things that we need to take a hard lookat when we examine Federal dollars.

Mr. GRAYSON. May I say something, Congressman Hayes, too, inthat regard?Mr. HAYES. Sure. Go right ahead.Mr. GR.AYSON. As we all know, truancy and dropping out is ex-

tremely complex, and the studies show that the dropout rate na-tionally has been around 25 percent since the 1950's, and, suddenly,people are concerned about kids slot being in school, and we do notknow why, we do not know who is dropping out and so forth.

Contrary to, popular belief in Some instances, the States do lookto the U.S. Congress for direction and leadership, and one of theuniquenesses of this bill that you have is thatand very detailed,is the component for the national school dropout study.

In Illinois, for this $10 million, we had over a 109 applicationsrequesting over $26 million. We do not even consider that to be thefull resource needs of the State. We only had $10 million. The Chi-cago public schools asked for $9 million, which is a modicum toreach the needs.

Your $50 million can help this State by providing the leadershipand clear direction, particularly in those areas that you mentionedin your bill, identifying at-risk lcids, what are the indicators; work-ing or pregnancy or failing 1 year behind or 2 years behind and soforth, but getting good data on identification of at-risk kids early aswell as how you go about recovering and retrieving dropouts andgetting them back into a program and what can be the best pro-gram for a youngster that has left the system and will not comeback.

/ mentioned this, what is the enticement, and clear leadership onwhat is the appropriate kind of data to collect so that the 5tatescan best iise their resources, and I think if your $50 million is tar-geted in that way, you can provide the leadership and consistencyand direction, to, the States tore.

Thank ycki.

141

137

Chairman HAWKINS. Dr. Dixon, I, too, regret that you cannotvote in two districts. I thought the complaint in Chicago was yousometimes vote twice in the same district.

Mr. DIXON. That was under the prior administration.Mr. HAYES. Ms. Steinhagen, what is the total enrollment at Du-

Sable?MS. STEINHAGEN. Just under 2,000.Mr. HAYES. Just under 2,000.And the problem of high school dropouts that you have talked

about, we had talked about, I am just bothered by whether or notthe budgetary constraints that are now being imposed under theGramm-Rudman-Holl ings Act is going to give causeif they areput into effect as an effective hold on the public school system, ifyou have looked at it from the point of view that a specific accel-eration of this dropout ratio due to the reduction of funds that youare now getting.

Ms. STEINHAGEN. Well, I think that anything that acceleratespoverty is going to do that. We still do have the young people thatwill drop out of school to support their families because they thinkthey can do it at a 0.35-an-hour job at a fast-food place.

I think this is such a severe problem. Of course, the dropout ratewas like that when I went to school, but you did not need a highschool education to get a job, and I think that the amounts that weare losing, not only in the payment of welfare, but the amountsthat we are losing in the noncollection of taxes, because I ampretty sure from looking around the school and driving up anddown the streets around the school, that the dropouts are not work-ing, and, sO, they are contributing nothing, and I think that theproblem really seriously starts with very, very young babies whohave problems in elementary school.

There is a lot of criticism that high schools are not doing theirjobs, and our teachers say, well, the elementary school teachers arenot doing their job. I think the elementary teachers in some in-stances are doing outstanding jobs. The children that come toschool prepared are being held back by children who are not pre-pared and taldng the teachers' time.

So, any amounts of money are probably not enough because Ireally see this as a problem beginning in some cases almost atbirth.

Mr. HAYES. You mentioned teenage pregnancy as being one ofthe real reasons for dropouts among--

Ms. STEINHAGEN. For females, yes.Mr. HAYES [continuing]. Females. You indicated, I think I heard

some statistics, that the ratio of dropoutS among males was evenhigher than that.

Ms. STEINHAGEN. Ours remains pretty consistent. I guess theysay nationwide it is higher with males. A.s you may have seen, andI know you are coming to visit, we do have a clinic established nowby some foundations. We feel that that may be a short-term solu-tion to keep our girls in school, but another very serious problem isgoal, raising.

Many of oftr studenti will tell us and their parents will tell .usthat they are the first high school, gradithtes in that family. So, Ithink if we can short term the pregnancy rate while we build goals

142

138

and aspirations for the young women, we can probably bring ourfemale dropout rate more in line with the national average.

Mr. HAYES. What percentage ofmaybe I should ask this of thedoctor. What percentage of the enrollment in the Chicago PublicSchool System is black?

Mr. GRAYSON. Approximately 60 percent at this time.Mr. HAYES. And does that include Hispanics?Mr. GRAYSON. Hispanics are approximately 22 percent.Mr. HAYES. OUt of a total enrollment of what?Mr. GRAYSON. OUt of a total enrollment of approximately 435,000

youngsters.Mr. HAYES. Can you hear me in the back?VOICE. We want you to speak up and speak into the microphone.Mr. HAYES. I am sorry. All right, all right. I usually do not have

problems being heard. I am always conscious of that fact.I want to thank this panel for having presented us with some ex-

cellent testimony, and I say again to you that your entire preparedtestimony will be printed and made part of the record.

It is our hope and our feeling that certainly you have made acontribution here this morning towards the passage of 3042 by fo-cusing attention on what is a critical problem facing our wholeNation. The Federal Government, particularly we, as Members ofthe House of Representatives, has to begin to address itself to thisproblem for the welfare of the total Nation.

Thank you very much.ALL. Thank you. [Applause.]Mr. HAYES. I am now going to call panel No. 2, Roberto Rivera,

director of Chicago Intervention Network, Chicago Department ofHuman Services; Father Charles Kyle, St. Xavier Church; KathyDunbar, student, who is going to be accompanied by an adviser,Reginald Payne.

I say to you as I have said to the previous panel your entire testi-mony will be made a part of the record, printed into the record,and you can deal with your testimony in its entirety or the high-lights of it, whichever you choose as your pleasure.

We certainly appreciate your being with us this morning. Youwill be the final panel that we will hear before we break for lunchwhich is going to be brief. Do not get excited, people. We will onlytake about 20 minutes to have a break.

We will start this panel by hearing from Roberto Rivera.

STATEMENT OF ROBERTO RIVERA, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO INTER-VENTION NETWORK, CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERV-ICES

Mr. RIVERA. Good morning.Good morning, distinguished and honorable Members of the U.S.

Congress. My name is Roberta Rivera, and I am the director of theChicago Intervention Network, Department of Human Services,city of Chicago.

The Chicago Intervention Network Program is a major initiativeof Mayor Harold Washington and the city of Chicago that is curb-ing the high rate of youth crimes attributed to street gangs.

143

139

The Chicago Intervention Network has been credited for playinga major role in the reduction of gang-related homicides since theprogram's inception. Since July 1985, there has been a 42-percentreduction of gang-related homicides in those areas of the city thatare high-priority areas. They are the Cabrini Green Chicago Hous-ing Authority area, the Henry Horner Chicago Housing AuthorityDevelopments, the Robert Taylor Chicago Housing Authority devel-oping area, the Humboldt Park/West Town community and thePilsen/Little Village community. Citywide, the program has beencredited for a 32-percent reduction in gang-related homicides.

According to the Aspira Chicago dropout study in 1984, fear ofgangs was the most often-cited reason why students dropped out ofschool. Better than one out of every four students that dropped outof high school did so because of unsafe schools.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Researchand Census, nationally, over 300,000 students are assaulted everymonth while attending school. While high school dropout and stu-dents being assaulted in and around our schools are serious issues,ineffective and unsafe schools also contribute to other factors thatare both costly to the taxpayer as well as contributes to the erosionof the social fabric that communities are made of. For example, inChicago, according to the Chicago Police Department. over 47,000citations were issued this year because of truancy. Further, nearly60 percent of all youth crime takes place during the school hours,when kids should be in school.

Another component of the Aspira Chicago study indicated thatthe selling and distribution of drugs and other substances are soprevalent that 94 percent of the interviewees indicated that they orsomeone they knew could purchase any type of drugs in andaround schools in less than an hour.

Recently, the State of Illinois General Assembly supported anumber of recommendations proposed by the Illinois State TaskForce on Hispanic Student Dropouts. One of the key legislativethrusts of the task force was the safe school zone. The legislationcalls for increased penalties for the possession of weuroas on schoolgrounds. In addition to increased penalties for the distribution ofdrugs and other substances within a 1,000-foot radius of a school.

As part of the Chicago Intervention Network initiCive, 40 Chica-go public schools have been identified for the purpose of enhancingthe safety of students in and around those schools, student's safetyas well as impacting the dropout rate, which destroys he future ofour youth and their respective communities, is one of 'le many fo-cuses of the Chicago Intervention Network.

Less than 2 weeks ago, Mayor Harold Washington anaounced thecreation of the Chicago Safety Network. This initiative v ill supple-ment the thrust of the Chicago Interveution Netwol afe schoolzone program by mandating that in a AI' don to our .forts in theschools, neighborhoods immediately surroundinF, ur targetedschools will be organized into safe scilool _ clubs. Thesesafety zones will be expanded to include other residential and com-mercial areas that could benefit from this program.

Recent efforts on the part of Government are not necessarily at-tributed to the goodwill of Government. Unfortunately, youth havepaid with their lives because of the failures of the adult community

144

140

and institutions. In 1984, the Humboldt Park Community buried 38young people due to gang violence. All of them were high schooldropouts.

As a result of these deaths, the Federal Bureau of Investigationlabeled the Humboldt Park community as the most violent commu-nity in the United States. Also, in 1984, a promising and giftedyoung man was killed blocks away from his high school. Theschool, Simeon High School; the student, Benjamin Wilson.

It has been the community, through the efforts of agencies, par-ents and students, groups like the Network for Youth Services, theUrban League, the United Neighborhood Organization [UNO], De-signs for Change, the Alternative School Network, and many othergroups, have come to realize that the best investment we can makein America is one that makes it possible for students to graduate,who can read, write, and be critical thinkers.

As the director of the most comprehensive antigang program puttogether in the history of Chicago, I believe that the gang problemin Chicago and elsewhere can be sufficiently resolved if we canbenefit from a school system that would graduate 80 to 90 percentof its students, as opposed to what communities are forced toendure, a systemwide dropout rate of 47 percent, and in the poorestcommunities, a dropout rate of 70 to 80 percent.

It has been the community that created the legislative initiativein Sprineield which created the safe school zone, the educationalpartnership act, which fosters an increased role of higher learninginstitutions with public elementary and secondary schools throughaccredited programs and college fmancial aid for college studentswho tutor community youth. Another effort that the communitygroups supported and advocated for was the lowering of the stu-dent-to-counselor ratio rate currently projected at 750 to 1. Thisnumber is to be reduced by 1990 to 250 to 1. Accordhig to one anal-ysis made in last year's Federal budget, less than 5 percent of thetotal budget benefited youth. Before us exists an opportunity toimpact those who fall to the wayside as a result of an unresponsi-ble system. The same system that reported for years that the drop-out rate was less than 10 percent for the city of Chicago, and lessthan 5 percent for the State of Illinois.

As a member of the Illinois State Task Force on Hispanic Stu-dent Dropouts, we discovered computer printouts that indicatedthat as early as 1981, the State board of education knew that thedropout rate exceeded 45 for the city of Chicago, and that nearly 35percent of all students in the State of Illinois drop out of highschool.

I support the bill under discussion because it provides for amajor inroad that both the State board of education and the Chica-go public schools did not support at the State legislative level. Theschool reentry act will allow students to have a second opportunityto complete their education.

The bill also calls for developing a uniformed recording and re-porting system which will allow us to truly gage our efforts, toike cerrectionl, to monitor educetional decisions and reform;and, finally, to make the school system an accountable system toconnnunities, to Gtudents, and to the taxpayer.

Thank yov tVe the opportunity to testify on this important issue.

145

141

Mr. HAYES. Thank you. Thank you.[Applause.]Mr. HAYES. Father.Father KYLE. Thank you very much, Congressman Hayes, who I

worked for as a farm worker. I always used to open your hog barns.Mr. HAYES. That is right.

STATEMENT OF FATHER CHARLES KYLE, ST. XAVIER CHURCHFather Kyr..E. In 1971, I was attending a meeting of the Lakeview

Latin American Coalition in the basement of St. Sebastian Church.A presentation was being given by Dr. Isidro Lucas who had re-cently completed a report for the U.S. Department of Health, Edu-cation and Welfare on dropouts in the Hispanic community in Chi-cago. He reported to us that the dropout rate in Chicago for PuertoRican students in Chicago public schools in 1971 was 71.2 percent.

He also explained that the findings of his report had been cov-ered up and the Chicago Board of Education would not even allowits minutes to record that he had submitted to them a copy of hisstudy. In all honesty, I did not believe Dr. Lucas nor his findings,Congressmen.

Yet, during my 17 years as a priest in Spanish-spealdng parishesin Chicago, I have had to bury 18 youths who were killed in streetrelated violence. Honorable Congressmen, there is no scream likethat of a mother when her child's coffin is closed. It is a sound younever forget. Because of the findings of Dr. Lucas, when I would bedriving home from one of these funerals, I tried to think, what isthe relationship, and I would go over to a school and I would askwhy was this person not in school. Sometimes I would be told thatthat person was in school and they would get them out of class be-cause, at that time, the attendance records were related to theState funding formula, and they were keeping kids on the booksthat really were not in school; therefore, they were not seekingthem as truants.

As time went on, I would ask at all the funerals, what school washe in, what school were they in, and every one of these 18 youngpeople that I buried had dropped out of school.

My deep personal concern over the dropout question led to mycompletion of a doctoral dissertation at Northwestern University inJune 1984. This study was sponsored by Aspira, Inc., of Illinois, andsupported by the National Center for Bilingual Research, John andKatherine MacArthur Foundation, the Hispanic Policy Develop-ment Project, and Northwestern University's Center for Urban Af-fairs 6.nd Policy Research.

The study found that the dropout rate t two predominantly His-panic public high schoJls in Chicago app.-oached 70 percent andthat the systemwide dropout rate for the class of 1983 of Chicagopublic high schools was approximately 47 percent.

This systemwide dropout rate is very close to the 43 percent re-ported that year by the Chicago Panel for Public School Finances,yet it is quite different from the dropout rate of 8 percent for thatyear that the Chicago public schools were using, and I sat on thecommittee on the dropout reduction that were given in those docu-ments.

146

142

The dropout problem is a graver societal problem now than 10years ago because there is no longer safety valves in the Americaneconomy for dropouts who can be defined as unskilled manual la-borers. As the Midwest and the Nation as a whole is discovering,operative jobs are being performed abroad by low cost foreignlabor. Over 200,000 operatives or manufacturing jobs have disap-peared from Illinois in the last 10 years. Operative work, like as-sembly and punch press, had been the labor market safety valvefor dropouts. These lost job categories will not return as the newjobs becoming available demand educated workers who can under-stand and operate high-technology computer-related equipment.

In addition, the educational unpreparethiess of our youth has al-ready proven to be a weak link in our military forces as manymembers of our volunteer military services are unable to operatethe new high-technology armaments.

Thus, the severe dropout problem is both a drain on national eco-nomic development and poses an interim t threat to our national se-curity.

The reason that dropout data was never a concern to most of usis because the rate was consistently underreported. When I did mydoctoral dissertation, which consisted of a study of two Hispanichigh schools in Chicago, I used three different measures for thedropout rate.

First, I followed each student by identification number from theentering freshmen classes of 1979 at these two schools over 4 years,followed them anywhere within the public school system. Second, Istudied the attendance numbers that were entered for the fresh-men cohort of 1979 and followed them by grade year over 4 yearsin what is called the annual Federal racial/ethnic count that issubmitted for these schools.

Finally, at the suggestion of a student, I got yearbooks and start-ed counting pictures, started following over 4 years where thesepictures are and where they went to. I also interviewed at home100 dropouts, 100 stayins from the 1979 freshmen cohorts of thesetwo schools.

One of the things that I fcund was that a school which reporteda 4.5-percent dropout rate for the graduating class of 1983 hadgraduated only 345 students from a freshman class in 1979 of 1,985students.

Indeed, what Dr. Lucas had alleged in 1971 was true in 1984,that is, statistics were being creatively manipulated to falsely indi-cate that an extremely grave problem was almost nonexistent, andas an aside, when I met with Dr. Lucas after I completed this studyand I had not spoken to him for fear of biasing the study, and Itold him the results, he cried. He said I cannot tell you how sadthis makes me because I. had hoped things would have been differ-ent. Here is a man whose whole career was ruined by covering upthis.

Honored Representatives, I assure yor that the inaccurate re-cording of dropout data is, indeed, a national phenomenon. In April1984, I addressed the Foco Conference of Hispanics in Higher Edu-cation at the University of Michigan, and it was told after my pres-entation that the underreporting of dropout data was happening inMichigan.

147

143

On May 5, 1984, I was a featured speaker at the Cinco de MayoCelebration at the School of Education at Harvard University andwas told by participants at this Harvard conference that they hadencountered similar experiences with false dropout rates.

In August 1984, I addressed a workshop of the Society for theStudy of Social Problems in San Antonio, TX, and was told by aprofessor from Southern Methodist University of similar findingsin Texas. Finally, I encountered the same reactions to these find-ings when I al:IC:eased the American Sociological Society in Wash-ington, DC, in August of last year.

Because of these nationwide experiences in academic settings, Iapplaud H.R. 3042 which will establish a national definition ofdropout and a method to collect this statistic. When deciding onsuch a definition, I urge you to consider that many students actual-ly drop out of school after eighth grade and I urge you also to con-sider that the completion of an general equivalency diploma shouldnot be used as a way of covering up whether or not somebody com-pleted a full 4-year course of education, and this is especially relat-ed to the lator market, because in 6 weeks of preparing for a GED,you do not Jearn how to get up on tin e, you do not learn how tocomplete astignments. There a re so many things that are learnedbesides just the content of the GED that you should be able to dis-tinguish between those statist-ii:s.

The State of Illinois has passed the following dropout-related leg-islation. It has established a kindergarten to 12th grade defmitionof dropout. Mandated the reporting of dropout rates yearly byschool by race, by gender, by special program to be included in theGovernor's annual report. Mandated that the auditor general ofthe State inspect such reports for compliance with state reportingprocedures, and, finally, establish a class A misdemeanor criminalpenalty, 1 year in jail, for the falsification of dropout data. That ishow important we consider this as a measure.

While conducting the Aspire of Illinois study of two predomi-nantly Hispanic high schools in Chicago, I found that the reasonmost often given for dropping out was fc?.r of gangs. That thingshad tipped so far that basically the good kids were afraid to go 3school.

In March 1985, I was project director of a research team fiDePaul University whose members were was invited by Dr. Byi l ofthe Board of Education to conduct a study of students at-ri,k ofleaving school, which Dr. Byrd referred to, and I have given you afull copy of that report, and they opened all their records and,indeed, you cannot identify who the students at-risk are.

The study included an analysis of 97,867 student records of enter-ing freshmen in the classes of 1979, 1980; and 1981, based on dataprovided by the .Office of Research and Evaluation, Chicago publicschools.' This fine data base was prepared for us by Dr. WilliamRice of the Chico& public sehools. The findings of the DePaul Uni-versity study included:

While preVious -studies b'ased ori systethwide dropout rates sug-gested that there is racial/ethnic difference in the dropout rate,the present student' suggests that there is little difference betweendropout rates for racial/ethni4 groups in' Chicago public echoiitls ifthe students attend-the same 'type Of school. In other words, a stu-

148

144

dent attends a selective school, selective academic, selective voca-tional school, where they have to be properly prepared to enter theschool, the minority student outperformed the white student.

For example, in the selective academic schools, like WhitneyYoung and like Ray Tech, the lowest dropout rate is for black fe-males of all groups. In the vocational school, selective vocationalschools, the lowest dropout rate is for Hispanics, male or female,and, so, the preparedness of the student and the type of school is areal factor and by aggregating the systems that are racially tippedone way or another without doing fine-tuning, you may miss that.

The focus of the dropout retention programs in Chicago publicschools should be the classroom since the youths most at-risk ofleaving school, as others have said, are often overaged, have failedminimum competency tests, and are behind level in reading andmathematics.

Intervention to help a student at risk should be initiated beforelith grade because a great number of the students at risk willhave left school before they enter their junior year.

Principals in Chicago public high schools perceive course failuresas the most important reason for students dropping out.

Chicago high school dropouts earn at least $5,000 less each yearthan high school graduates. According to the U.S. Census in 1980,Chicago had about 180,000 more high school dropouts than the na-tional dropout rate would predict for this urban population. Eachyear, these extra 180,000 high school dropouts contribute at least$22.8 million less in State income taxes than the high school gradu-ates do. So, it L cost-effective once you begin it because it is a cu-mulative thing that goes on year after year after year.

While the finding that student9 attending the same selectionschools perform about the samemany say that the reason thatthe dropout rate is so high is becluse parents of dropouts do notthink that the education of their caildren is important. Yet, whatresearch has done, such as Angek: Miller's did, a doctoral candi-date at the University of Illinois in Chicago, has found in a surveyof Mexican-American parents at Juarez High School that 90 per-cent of those parents stated that they would endure serious fman-cial hardship in order to see their child graduate from high school.

There are some exciting directions which can help ameliorate thecatastrophic dropout rate in Chicago. The Network Youth Serv-ices is a coalition of 33 youth-serving agencies in the Logan Square,Humboldt Park, and Weettewn neighborhoods in Chicago. Theyhave initiated a citywide media blitz titled "Operation Gradua-tion". I can show you this poster. Maybe the staff can pass it up,but it was designed by youth, and it is going to appear on every busand every train in Chicago, and the message il3 "Where will you bein 10 years if you drop out of school?" If you have dropped out andwant to return to school, call Operation Graduation.

The first 5 days that it began appearing just on a few buses, wegot 56 phone calls from kids calling up saying I want to go back toschool, how do I do it, who is going to h.elp facilitate it.

The campaign was a local mitiative which secured the coopera-tion of Hispanic media consultants, the Chicago Transit Authorityand McDonald's Corp. So, it was paid for by those functions.

14 9

145

There is a tremendous need for retrieval programs for dropoutswhich would provide 6 months to 1 year of highly individualizedteaching in a warm community setting to provide an academic andsocial bridge from the streets to the ordinary classroom situation.The Network for Youth Services now has a school going at theYMCA, a school going in Erie Neighborhood House, a school goingat Logan Square Girls & Boys Club, and what we do is we get thekids who are out at least 6 months and let them be in a warm set-ting where they have one teacher teaching them all day readingand math, earn some credits, and then move them into the regularschool setting.

Universities can also play a major contribution. Four years ago,De Paul University jointly founded the STEP Program with JuarezChicago Public High School. For 4 years, De Paul University hassent buses to ,Tuarez High School each Saturday and taken theseMexican-American youths to the De Paul campus for intensive tu-toring in math and the sciences. More than 500 students have par-ticipated in this program. Some of the students who have complet-ed this program have tested in the top 1 percent of the highestscorers in the Nation and have received scholarships to the Na-tion's most elite universities.

The program yearly ends with a banquest at De Paul Universityfor parents and students. This year's banquet was packed with par-ents and students. Next year, the program is being expanied to in-clude a prcdominantly black high school in Chicago, Corliss HighSchool, and they will begin the same program at Corliss.

In closing, I want to thank each of you for your dedication to theyoung people of our country and to promise the support of our com-munity in the passage of H.R. 3042.

I especially wish to thank Congressman Charles Hayes for hisleadership and concern for our city's young people and also theUi-ban League in this country.

Thank you.[Addendum to the statement of Father Kyle follows:]

146

References:

Aspire Inc. of New York. 1983. Racial and Ethnic High School Dropout Rates inNew York City: A Summary RepoR7-1983. Bronx, New ork: Aspira Inc. ofNew York.

Hess Jr., G. Alfred. 1885. Dropouts from Chicago Public Schools Chicago,Ulinois: Chicago Panel on Public School Finances.

Illinois State Task Force on Hispanic Student Drop Outs. 1985. "A GenerationToo Precious to Waste. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois GeneralAssembly.

Kyle, Charles. 1984. "Los Preciosos: The Malnitude of and Reasons for theHispanic Drop Out Problem in Chicago: A Case Study of Two Chicago Public_High Schools. 1984. Dissertation. Evanston, Illinois: NorthwesternUniversity.

---- Lane, John; Sween, Toyce; and Triana, Armando. 1986. "We Have a Choice" -Students At Risk .t Ifeaving Chicago Public Schools. A Report to theChicago Board of Education and the Illinois Attorney General. Chicago,IL: DePaul University's Chicago Area Studies Center and Center flrResearch on Hispanics.

Lucas, Isidro. 1971. Puerto Rican Drop Outs in Chica o: Numbers andMotivations (Final Report Project No. 0-E-108 ). Chicago, Illinois.Council on Urban Echcation.

147

Mr. HAYES. Thank you very much. [Applause.]The next young lady is Kathy Dunbar. Kathy Dunbar has had a

few problems gearing herself to have the courage to appear beforethis committee, and she came into the office last week and was alittle bit nervous the first time I met with her about appearingbefore our committee.

I gave her every assurance that she would have no need to befearful of testifying before our committee. Not only did she havefriends on the committee who would be listening to her, but the au-dience, I am sure the vast majority of them, would be sympathetictoward her, a young student who did drop out of high school, and isprepared to tell us about the circumstances, so as to help otherswho may choose to follow the same route and discourage themfrom doing it.

So, Ms. Dunbar, will you please proceed with the assurance thatwe are with you? Pull the mike up to you r ow.

STATEMENT OF KATHY DUNBAR, STUDENTMS. DUNBAR. Good morning. Good morning.My name is Kathy Dunbar. I am 12 years old. I have a 10-month-

old son.The reason I am here today is to tell you about my reasons for

leaving high school. I began high school when I was 13 years ofage. At the time, I felt I was not ready for high school, and I wasnot too sure of myself.

I did not feel comfortable with my classmates and teachers, and Iwas not particularly interested in my studies. I did not have muchconfidence in myself and I did not see any reason to continue.

I came back to school because I realized without a diploma, therewere not too many things I could accomplish. There would not bemuch I could do for myself and my son. I would have to take low-paying jobs or do something illegal to make money or to get a job.

I would not have options to do many things that I woad be ableto do with a diploma. I am presently enrolled in a program atCAMC, called special project, mayor's office of employment andtraining. It works with people like myself who have left highschool.

While in the program, I received 8 weeks of academic and jobtraining. This program has given me confidence in myself and Ican work at my own pace. I do not feel pressured to achieve mygoals, and I feel comfortable with my classmates. Although I amgetting paid to go there, that is not my reason for staying on withthis program.

I am really learning something, and I feel confident in the workthat I do. The atmosphere is pleasant and so are the people I workwith. I feel that when the program is over, I will be able to saythat I have accomplished a lot toward my goals.

My advice to other people who have left high school or thinkabout leaving high school is this: Do not make the same mistake Imade because you will regret it later on in life. Things will be verydifficult for you and you would never achieve your goals.

Many opportunities that are available for a person who has a di-ploma will not be available for you. You will not be able to accom-

152

148

plish anything or get anywhere in life without a diploma. Stay irschool, you will benefit greatly if you do.

Thank you. [Applause.)Mr. HAYES. Mr. Payne, woul.d you care to add something?Mr. PAYNE. I \Wald like to.Mr. HAYES. Raise it up a little, sec if you can talk directly into it.

Does not sound like it. Push t14.e one over.

STATEMEidT OF REGINALD PAYNE, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITYALLIANCE OF METRO7OLITAN CHICAGO ECAMC]

Mr. PAYNE. Congrbssman Hayes, Congressman Hawkins, andcommitten members. Good morniy,g.

Mr. HAYES. Good morning.Mr. PAYNE. My name is Reginald Fyne, and I am the director of

the Community Alliance of Met politan Chicago [CAM%CAMC i community-based educational agency for dropouts six-

teen to 21 years of age. CAMC provF remedial education, preem-ployment training and job and college placement for student gradu-ates.

I am here today to documer t support for bill H.R. 3042, the drop-out prevention am.: demonstration project. I am also here to docu-ment support for community-based educational organizations, whohave been viable and active partners in the effort to impact drop-outs, both potential and actual.

Community-based educational organizations are better equippedto help dropouts for the following reasons:

One, they have greeter flexibility of staffing and scheduling.Two, They have very strong roots in the community.Three, they provide small class size, individualized instructions,

and immediate support counseling. A e call it hallway counseling.Four, they have well-established networks of resources with

which they are accustomed to working with.Poor and minority youth have lost their sense of hope and their

vision of a better tomorrow. Nothing is more debilitating, more de-structive or an individual's effort and responsibility than the per-ception of having no control over one's own future.

This labor force that this country will be dependent upon in thenext decade, the 16 to 19 year old dropout youth, needs the $50 mil-lion investment cf ER. 3042 to become self-sufficient, income-earn-ing adults. with marketable skills.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1975, the youthunemployment rate for whites was 17.9 percent compared to 39.5percent for black youths. In 1980, it was 15.5 percent for whiteyouths and 38.5 percent for black youths. In 1985, the figure forwhite youths was 15.7 percent and 40.2 for black youths.

The illiteracy rate for black youths over 18 was 44 percent out of7.8 million blacks in that category. Fifty-six percent out of 5.1 mil-lion Hispanics in that age category.

According to the high school dropout prevmtion .3.etwork ofsoutheast Michigan, its recent study confirmed the alarming drop-out rate in the following urban cities: New York, 56.4 percent;Boston, 52.2 percent; Detroit, 33.5 percent; Michigan, 51 percent;and Chicago, 43.5 percent. What works for dropouts? What works

153

149

for dropouts are the same programs and strategies that work withpotential dropouts. Remedial education, basic skills training inreading, writing and computing, and more importantly, a school-to-work component that guarantees entry-level employment for theacquisition of a major educational goal or a school completion forpotential in-school dropouts.

Employment incentives must be considered in order to impactthis neglected, yet emerging youth population. Community-basededucation organizations must be cut in and not cut out in thismajor effort of redirecting the country's next labor force.

Organizations like the Alternative School Network, which is aneighborhood-based organization that includes youth service agen-cies and alternative schools, serving minority youth, provides acompetency-based job training, computer-assisted instruction andbasic skills and job placement for dropouts.

Big Buddies, Inc., the Institute for African Education, which is anational educational agency that utilizes sports and education as astrategy of impacting educational goals of high schools. This agencyis directed by Larry Hawkins of Chicago. These are just a few ofthe community-based organizations that H.R. 3042 will have animpact upon, provided that local educational agencies, such as theBoard of Education, Chicago City Colleges, and the State Board ofEducation include them in the program strategies, the advisorycouncil make-up, and funding commitments.

This effort should be a joint commitment for the long-term in-vestment of our future. Conservative estimates have calculatedthat the cost of incarceration for an adult, 22 and older, in thiscountry's prison system is $22,000. It is $10,000 for a juvenile for 1year. It takes $2.5 million to teach a youth to read from kindergar-ten to 12th grade, and $2,054 for a school-age child in Chicagopublic schools.

We have not invested nearly enough to redirect minority drop-outs back into the labor force, back on the tax rolls, and off thewelfare rolls. H.R. 3042 is a new beginning. The success of this billrelies on how willing the schools will work collaboratively withcommunity-based organizations, how willing the business communi-ty will guarantee employment for the educational success of formerand potential dropouts, and the commitment of this committee toreturn the sense of lost hope in the vision of a better tomorrow tothis special population.

We also need swift approval of the targeted jobs tax credits legis-lation, which expired December 1985. TJTC is greatly needed forthe job placement strategies of CBO's. It is needed as an incentivefor neighborhood businesses.

I would like this morning to introduce a group of young peoplewho chose a second chance for a better tomorrow, a group whowould like to learn, who would like to work, who would like to paytaxes, who would like to raise a family, and who would like tomake a contribution to this country. Today, they are mere numbersand statistics. Tomorrow, they are the future.

Will the students from CAMC please stand and be recognized?[Applause.]Mr. PAYNE. Bill H.R. 3042 is a well-intended investment in this

country's future.

63-276 0 - 86 - 6 154

150

Thank you.[Applause.]Mr. HAYES. Thank you. Both you and Ms. Dunbar.Each of you have addressed yourselves not only to the severity of

the problem of high school dropouts, but you have touched uponsome of the root causes of it.

I know you, Mr. Rivera, indicated that crime and fear in andaround the school had been at least some of the reasons why somekids choose to dropout rather than to continue to participate inthat kind of environment.

Father, you mentioned that you had participated and officiatedat the funerals of, I think, 18, 17 or 18 students over the years, andall of them were dropouts.

We have certainly had certain overviews of the kinds of pro-grams that are being pushed now, which Ms. Dunbar has benefit-ted from.

Do you seethis is addressed to all of youthe $50 million thatwe are talking about per year, $50 million per year, over a 3 yearperiod, as being helpful inI know the city has its own program,Mr. Rivera, and fighting the drug problem, which is a real roughproblem.

The accessibility of drugs into schools certainly is something thatthe city has been addressing itself to, and I noticed there was amention here of 1 counselor for every 750 students and you hope toreduce it to one counselor for every 250 students.

Do you see, for example, that some of this money that we aretalking about being used in that direction to counsel these studentsthat may encourage those who dropped out to come back ir andmaybe discourage those who have been duped? For example, thedrug pushers.

I have had a feeling that those who really make the money outof drugs and victimize our young are not usually apprehended. It isthe victhos who suffer the most.

What is your reaction?Mr. RIVERA. Well, my sense is that in terms of the $50 million,

will it be useful, absolutely. There is no doubt about it. We need tobroaden the financial base based on the dimension of the problem.

What I would discourage, quite frankly, is to have either theState Board of Echication or the Chicago Board of Education utilizethose dollars in the place of dollars that must come from local andState resources as their fair share in terms of making a contribu-tion toward this end.

You know better than perhaps I do how easily these types ofthings can be arranged, and we would discourage that given thatany time those games are played, our young people fall victim tothat.

I concur w noleheartedly I7ith Mr. Payne in terms of the wholediscussion centering around including community agencies because,as it was noted in my presentation, Father Kyle and everybody elsewho has been players on this discussion, it has not been the proactors in the business that have been promoting this discussion; onthe contrary, many times, they have worked against communitieswho have worked on this issue and for that reason and many otherreasons, the fact is that you get a higher sense of accountability in

1 5

151

terms of community agencies because their hearts are in the rightplace. They want to make a difference for these kids.

I think that including them on that discussion and includingthem in terms of whatever finances may be targeted as a holisticpackage makes a lot of sense.

So, for those reasons, I would concur with your statement or atleast your question, but would only amend it, if you will, to saythat I would hate to see these $50 million be used as a supplementor, let us say, as a substitute for something that should be a supple-ment.

Mr. HAYES. Do you care to comment at all?Mr. PAYNE. Well, I think the issue, as we have heard it men-

tioned, like I say, means a lot, you know, to community-based agen-cies, and I am not sure whether it dents cities, but I guess the con-cern, like you say, of returning back to some kind of control andinvolvement that community groups have, like you say, we have aninvested interest.

Somehow, we see the misty issue that if kids dropout of highschool, the high schools are located in the community. So, there-fore, we have an investment. I think there is definitely a need tofind out what the abuse is. There is a strong advisory council madeup of those entities that impact dropouts, and sometimes it tendsnot tothey tend to go for the names, like you say, without theones actually responsible.

The other issue, too, I think, as Congressman Hawkins had men-tioned, as a demonstration project, they are looking for what iscost-efficient. Most community-based organizations do a very goodjob, like you say, by the skin of our teeth, and in a way or two, likeyou said, be able to provide the same type of services, extremelycost-efficien t and compare those with the other large educationalagencies. That is something to look at.

It is kind of really ironic that the program that Ms. Dunbar men-tioned, and when she mentioned the issue about getting paid, thetotal amount of her payment comes up to be $667. That is the totalamount she will get from participation in the program.

We put a survey together. We asked them what were the threethings that they did with their check. The first thing they did withtheir check was pay back their parents for all that they loanedthem. The second part was that they paid for day care services,and the third was transportation. So, here, you are talking about aprogram that costs approximately $667 investment and the returnon the investment is that our role is to have a Kathy Dunbar whogoes to the school system able to comfortably pass a high schoolequivalency exam, and also look for a year-round job that wouldkeep her off of that Federal program that next year. That is an ex-tremely small investment for the return that you get.

So, I think that is an issue. You give $50 million to community-based organizations, you will be surprised how far it goes. Commu-nity-based organizations have been struggling for a long time foraccountability, for the opportunity, for the partnership, and I thinkthis is probably the opportunity because, a3 I said, we have triedeverything. Let us try education.

We tried everybody. Let us try community-based organizations.That is really what our involvement is this time.

r,

152

Mr. HAYES. Father.Father KYLE. Well, I think we should do more. Again, it is

almost like a dream to see you come to Chicago with CongressmanHawkins, that the concern that you havemy first belief is youhave designed this very, very well, thai the national recordingsystem, if done properly, you are going to see things move real fast.

I studied 12 cities, only 3 of them have really honest numbers,and they have basically been generated by nonschool personnel.New York has had a study which shows a comparable rate.Miami's Dade County has a study which shows a comparable rate.Los Angeles' School District, as you know, has a study that shows acomparable rate.

The other 10 cities, they have 3-, 5-percent dropout rate. I mean,it is just ridiculous. When the Nation, as a whole, we come to un-derstand this problem, nobody is going to tolerate it, and concern-ing the three alternative schools we have. You walk in and seethese kids in school, it is just wonderful that the principal of thesethree schools is a former high school principal, a former elementa-ry school principal, making $16,000 a year. Why? Because he is re-tired, he cares about this, and he came back and wanted to contrib-ute, and it is something that a community-based organization cando.

As Mr. Payne said, we plan on putting these same kids back intothe Chicago Public School System. We are not taking money fromthe public school system. If they go back, they will be getting$3,500-$3,000 State aid, and for those kids next year. So, I wouldalso second what Mr. Payne and the wonderful results of peoplelike Ms. Dunbar that community-based organizations are an impor-tant part of the retrieval process.

Mr. HAYES. Congressman Hawkins.Chairman HAWKINS. Well, certainly, this panel has highlighted

the provisions in the bill.The point, I think, is well made that this is only demonstration

program, and we would hope that it would demonstrate the valueof the program and a year from now, we would be back in Chicagoperhaps listening to what has happened and be able to documentwhat we cannot document at this time. This would help us con-vince hard-headed business minds in the Congress that they arenot wasting the money. They are not saving it by not appropriatingthe $50 million.

Incidentally, the $50 million is only for the fiscal year 1987, be-ginning in October. The other 2 years, fiscal years 1988 and 1989,would be authorized at such sums as may be necessary. I thinkthrough hearings such as this, Mr. Hayes, we can document thatmuch more than the $50 million would be needed.

Father Kyleand this is pertinent to the point on page 3 of yourstatementyou have mentioned that the 180,000 dropouts are con-tributing $23 million or $22.8 million less in State income taxesthan high school graduates.

Is that data contained, that data contained in th is report?Father KYLE. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.Chairman HAWKINS. I think it is very helpful in showing that

the $50 million is just a drop in the bucket compared with the say-

157

153

ings and the actual income that would be coming in if we couldreduceFather KYLE. Federal statutes, when it is applied to--Chairman HAWKINS. Yes. It is only state income taxes here.Father KYLE. So, when we find that the Federal income tax does

not include sales tax, it does not include anyththg else, it just isstate income taxMr. HAYES. Or the lottery.Father KYLE. The lottery. And it is based on Federal charts from

the U.S. Census Department. So, it is not ourChairman HAWKINS. Yes. Well, we could be using this tomorrow

morning, Mr. Hayes, I think.Mr. Rivera, Ms. Dunbar, your testimony was extremely valuable,

and we certainly appreciate your appearing before the committee.I wanted to ask Mr. Rivera about the Chicago Intervention Net-

work Program. How is this program funded?Mr. RIVERA. There are two primary revenue sources. The dele-

gate agenciesand +he program funds 101 delegate agencies to doa variety of programs for youth, families, neighborhood watch pro-grams, victim witness assistance program, alternative programs foryouth.

Those dollars come in through the community development blockgrant. All right. Through the Federal Government to the tune ofabout $3.2 million are put into this effort of antigang.

The program hires 79 workers, street workers predominantly,that is paid by the corporate budget of the city of Chicago. In otherwords, those are city dollars. Very little support from the State atthis time.

Chairman HAWKINS. When you speak of intervention, whatreally do you mean? How do they intervene in connection withgang activity?

Mr. RIVERA. Well, intervention varies depending on the situation.If you do not mind, I would like to walk you through a scenariothat we encountered not very long ago.

We had worked with a family who was needing food, emergencyfood, and we came and we pronided them with food and in theprocess of working with the parents, we made friends with thekids. OK. About 13 to 15 years old, and we left business cards andwe promised to come back and we got a phone call 2 days later,anonymous basically saying look, there is going to be a major gangfight tonight on Chicago and Monticello.

So, we were out there. We had eight cars out there and as wewalked into the scene, there was literally 150 kids, you know, onboth sides of the street ready to mix it up and look here, here is aknife and here is a bat, a chain.

We called the police, but, you know. they worked with us. Weasked them to please not come in, do not start arresting. We arereally trying to work with these kids. You could lock them uptoday, but that is not going to prevent the war that has obviouslybeen called.

As we worked with the youth and we started slowly working, ittook us about 3 hours to clear the entire area, a kid comes out ofan abandoned building and hands over a loaded .38 to one of myworkers and says,

153

154

Look, I want to let you know that I had been ordered to shoot tonight but becauseyou were here, I didn't have to shoot tonight. I want to thank you, but now you'regoing to have to help me find housing because as soon as they find out that I'veturned this over, then my life is not going to be worth a nickel.

That night, we had that kid and his family in another situation,living in another part of town.

That is an example of an intervention. There are many types ofinterventions, but that was one that took place not very long ago,and I thought that you might be interested in hearing it.

Father KYLE. Congressmen, may I give you an example of aschool very close to that?

One of the two schools I studied, one of the gangs liked to walkacross the park when school was getting out shooting. That is in-timidating. And in addition, there were a lot of other problems.

No. 1, we had a real good principal down at the school. Thatprincipal brought in Roberto, brought in the mayor's people thatwork with students in gang crime. The first thing they did is theylooked out the window and they see somebody riding a bicyclearound the school with gang colors.

Well, they took care of that. It turned out that he had a gun, andthat he was a scout to see if there were members of an oppositiongang who have now returned to school. If you bring in dropouts,you bring in a whole new set of problems.

The second thing we analyzed was the big problem with thegangs that when the kids got out of school, the gangs would go byin cars and try to shoot or intimidate at the bus stop. They did twothings. One, they put a police car in the middle of that ballfield,and before school got out, the policemen got out of their cars, tookout their guns and called over to the school saying OK, let the kidsout. Believe me, there was no more shooting at the ballfield. Thatwas over fast.

The second thing that happened is they contacted the CTA andeverythey had four buses, regular run buses lined up in front ofthat school so the minute school was out, the kids are in the busesand they are gone. There are no targets, and I mean it is amazing.It is a marvelous program the mayor has put together, and it isproblem solving, the cooperation, but it is really changing some ofthe schools in terms of developing a reputation of being safe.

Mr. HAYES. Thank you very much to each of you, members of thepanel here. You contributed much to our efforts to focus some realattention on this whole problem.

I am going to have a change in the announced procedure here.We are moving along so fast and getting along so well, and you canlook at me and tell I am not suffering from malnutrition. We aregoing to alter our plans a little bit.

Chairman HAWKINS. You did not check with me either.Mr. HAYES. I understand that panel No. 3 is here.Chairman HAWKINS. Go ahead.Mr. HAYES. We were going to break for 20 minutes or so, dismiss

this panel and call panel No. 3 and conclude our hearing.Thank you very much.[Applause.]Mr. HAYES. Dr. Fred Hess is the executive director of the Chicago

Panel on Public School Finances; Dr. Donn Bailey, president of

rit_ a 41

155

Center for Inner City Studies; Rev. George Riddick, vice presidentat large, Operation PUSH; Renee Marie Montoya, associate direc-tor, Design foy.. Change.

If you would all come forward, please, we would certainly be in-terested in your testimony. Di. Montoya? All right.

We will begin with Dr. Hess.

STATEMENT OF DR. FRED HESS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THECHICAGO PANEL ON PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCES

Dr. HESS. Congressman Hayes, Congressman Hawkins, I am FredHess, the executive director of the Chicago Panel on Public SchoolFinances, and I want to thank you for this opportunity to be withyou and to tell you about our insights into the problems of drop-outs in the Chicago public school system and the other publicschool systems of our land.

I commend you for your concern about this problem and for yourefforts to help provide some solutions. Since our study has alreadybeen alluded to at some length by earlier witnesses, I will not sum-marize all of our findings, other than to perhaps point to a coupleof issues that were not mentioned and which you seem to havesome interest in.

One is the difference between males and females in the dropoutrate. Males drop out of the Chicago public schools at about a 49.5percent rate. That is one out of every two males drop out of theChicago schools. Thirty-six percent of the females do.

We found that males are much more likely to be retained thanfemales in the elementary grades, and that that is true eventhough reading scores might not differ very much between malesand females. In other words, what seems to be happening is that inelementary schools, boys do not get along as well as girls behavior-ally and are retained in grade, even though their achievement issimilar to that of girls.

Retention is one of the major factors in dropoutthe dropoutphenomena. Sixty percent of all kids who enter high school 1 yearover age drop out, 69 percent of all kids 2 years over age drop out.So, if you are going to be retained in the elementary schools, youare likely to drop out. If you are a boy, you are more likely to beretained than if you are a girl, even if your reading scores are thesame, and we think this is an effort that needs some attention inthe elementary school program of our country.

Another issue that was mentioned and that you obviously needsome fodder for tomorrow's hearing, I will give it to you, the totalcost of the 12,804 dropouts from the Chicago public schools in theclass of 1982 in terms of cost of crime, reduced taxes, and transferpayments for welfare and unemployment, is $60 million a year.Your bill provides $50 million a year to try and find the solution.In some districts, the cost for the one class from Chicago for oneyear is $10 million more than what your bill proposes for one yearof study.

So, if you are looking for comparative costs, we can reduce thecost of welfare payments. We can increfice the share Of taxes paidto a total of $60 million a year if we could eliminate the dropoutproblem. I am not sure any of us are sanguine enough to think we

160

156

can ever completely eliminate the dropout problem, but the costsare massive. That is just for 1 year, and then there is the class of1983 and the class of 1984, each of those at $60 million a year.

The full data analysis on those costs are contained in the studywhich is in front of you, in chapter 5, and it is based on HenryLevin's work for a U.S. Senate subcommittee some 10 years ago,which we have updated and applied to our particular situation.

There are several problems m this whole question of could---Mr. HAYES. Could you just pause and hold that thought for a

minute? I have just been advised that a car is blocking someonewho desires to get out of the parking lot. You can cooperate just bymoving, so you can release the person that you are holding hos-tage.

Will you proceed now?Dr. FIEss. Thank you.One of the problems in addressing the whole question of dropouts

is the defmition. We have defined dropouts as everybody wholeaves the Chicago public schools after entering high school, who isnot transferring to another diploma-granting institution, short ofgraduation.

We hope that you will enforce in your analysis, your nationalanalysis, some similar such defmition. There are several studiesthat are referred to in another article which I have given to mem-bers of your staff, which indicates that nationwide, there are nocommon defmitions currently.

We believe that your analysis has the opportunity to bring acommon defmition, and we urge you to adopt a comprehensive defi-nition so that we cannot limit the number of children who are con-sidered in this category.

Previously, in Chicago, if a woman left because she was preg-nant, she was not considered a dropout. If a man left to get a job,he was not considered a dropout. If a young person was needed athome, that was an official reason for leaving school, as far as thesystem was concerned. It was not recorded as a dropout.

Those are parts of the reasons why dropout statistics from theschool systems all over the country are so much under what peopleunderstand and know on the ground that they see the situation inreality.

We are happy to announce that the Chicago Public SchoolSystem as a result of our study has adopted a comprehensive drop-out definition, and all of those conditions or reasons for leavingschool are now considered dropouts.

Further, if a child transfers to a school which is not a diploma-granting school, they cannot verify that he is actually in anotherschool that is a legitimate diploma-granting school, he is also re-classified as a dropout. That is another big abuse that has beenprevalent in the Chicago system, and we looked at people who wererecorded as transfers out of the class of 1982, some 500 were record-ed as transfers to a nonexistent school, a school which used to existbut went out of existence some ten years ago. The kids used to bethere, and they just put that down as a way to get out of a schoolwithout being hassled to transfer, can leave a lot more easily thansomebody saying he is going to drop out. Kids are very clever abouthow to do this.

157

So, we commend to you the requirement of a common compre-hensive national definition for dropouts.

Second, how you count the rate is an important question, and,again, there is some major studies on this question that are re-ferred to in the article that I have given to your staff, but settingthe rate is a very tricky issue.

Most school districts set the dropout rate by dividing the numberof children they count as dropouts by the total enrollment of thehigh school. That creates single digit dropout numbers that youhave been hearing cited this morning, 5, 6, 8 percent.

We think that the dropout rate has to be counted on a longitudi-nal basis. You need to know the number of kids who enter in thebeginning of ninth grade and the number of kids who graduate andthe difference less the transfers are your dropouts.

Unfortunately, your bill, at least in the last draft which I saw,you choose to use also annualized rates. You will also continue tounderstate the problem if you do so. I hope that you will require inyour analysis and for those districts that participate in this prcjecta longitudinal method of accounting, that you will track studentsthrough 4 years, and more, actually. We had to track them through6 years. Some students take more than 4 years to get throughschool.

Third, I would hope that you would force in your analysis thedata to be disaggregated. Most of the collimon studies which havebeen done about dropouts across the country and the numbers thatyou have been hearing this morning aggregate data together acrossthe Nation from urban/suburban/rural districts alike and thencreate typical dropout pictures on the basis of that national aggre-gate data. Such a picture is very, very misleading, particularly forurban school systems. The pictures of students who drop out arevery different when you look at these differing kinds of school sys-tems.

So, I hope you will force the analysis to disaggregate the data byurban/suburban and rural districts, at least.

Even within the urban setting, the differences between schoolsand between parts of the districts are quite extreme. In Chicago,you have heard testimony already this morning from one schoolwhose dropout rate is at 59 percent. The highest dropout rate inthe city was at 63 percent. On the other hand, there is anotherschool not very far from here, the dropout rate was 11 percent. So,you have a dramatic difference between schools within the samedistrict, and trying to address that problem at those two differentschools is quite different.

You need some answers at a Bogen that will not make any sensewhatsoever to Du Sable, and there are many things that have to bedone at Du Sable that are unnecessary at Bogen.

So, I suggest that you have to look at the various differenceswithin districts as well as between types of districts. In the samesense, one of the things that we found most directly accounts forthe dropout rate at a particular high school is the entering readingrate of the freshmen as they come into school. Again, this variestremendously from one school to another. One school in thissystem, 80 percent of the students enter reading at below normal

1 6 2

158

rates, stanine 3 or below; whereas. at another school, less than 3percent enter reading below normal.

So, you have a tremendous variation in the preparedness of stu-dents coming into high school on the basis of their elementaryschool experience. Some of that difference is attributable directlyto policie... of the board of education, which gathers together theelite students in some schools and fosters them and leaves otherswho are reading below normal in other schools which we havecharacterized as holding pens until such time as the students candrop out.

Therefore, we think that looking at the elementary schools is acritical part of the whole process of addressing the question ofdropouts. You do not get quick return for your bucks on invest-ments in elementary schools because it takes 5 or 6 years for thosekids to grow up and become high school seniors and to graduate.

But we think the problem has to be addressed at that level.When you talk about the immediate remedial programs that canbe done with students who are at the point of dropping out, youtend to ignore that the problems are in 6-7-8 years previous intheir schooling experience. Therefore, we are looking at the ques-tion of what is going on in elementary schools. We are doing asecond study which we are tracking the careers of students we nowknow dropped out and compar:ng those with the elementary schoolcareers of students we now know graduated to see if we can see ex-actly where there kids get off the track and what can be done inthe elementary schools to help more kids stay on the track of aca-demic success and get to high school ready to do high school work.

There are also differences, however, between high schools. Somehigh schools getting the same kinds of ldde have higher dropoutrates than others who have the same kinds of kids. We want toknow why.

We just concluded an epigraphic study at eight high schools com-paring better performing schools with less well performing schoolsto look at those answers. We will make the results of that studyavailable to you later in the summer.

What do we do about dropouts? It seems clear to me that the onething we do know is that you cannot do one thing. There is nosingle thing that will solve the problem of dropouts across thiscountry. Additional counselors is a good idea. Dropping the ratefrom 4b0, which it currently is, by the way, not 750, to 1 isdrop-ping it down to 250 to 1 is obviously a good idea. It needs to bedone, but it will not solve the problem.

It will not make these kids who are being counseled how to stayin school suddenly better readers. Their problems are deeper thanthat of simply counseling. Counseling is an important element inthe process. Retaining the kids in elementary schools is not theanswer either, as I have already suggested. Kids retained are goingto have a higher dropout rate.

We have to do things that will provide more time on tasks forkids, additional summer school and after school tutorials, reducedclass sizes, the kinds of things that Dr. Byrd was mentioning, havebeen expanded, but not nearly expanded enough. Early childhoodeducation, 3,000 additional students involved this year in the public

159

schools, but there is over 16,000 qualified disadvantaged earlychildhood candidates for those 3,000 slots.

So, it is not coming near meeting the kind of need that is outthere. We need to adjust the high school curriculum for studentswho do get to high school unprepared, figure out ways to help themto be successful in high school.

What I am trying to suggest is that the mix of items that isneeded to address this problem is going to be different for eachschool system and different for different schools in the schoolsystem. Therefore, I commend the approach taken in H.R. 3042that allows a district to create a mix of programs that will addressthe particular needs of that district rather than trying to find oneor two or three common solutions that could be imposed across thewhole country.

Further, I commend the mix of districts that are going to be in-volved in this demonstration. I believe it is critical to see that dif-ferent kinds of districts have different kinds of problems. Largeurban systems have problems that are very different from districtslike Rockford and Elgin, which are small urban districts, and verydifferent from suburban districts and very different from rural dis-tricts.

Therefore, I warmly commend the approach of H.R. 3042 thatdistributes this demonstration money across a mix of types of dis-tricts. I think that is a critical component to solving this problemacross this Nation.

Let me thank you again for addressing this problem yourselves,and for allowing me to come and share with you our concernsabout the problems, and we warmly commend you and supportHouse bill 3042.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fred Hess follow s:]

160

CHICAGO PANEL ON PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCES53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1730 Chicago. Illinois 60604 (312) 939.220:'

TESTIMONY BEFORE THEUNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUB-COMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY,SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

G. ALFRED HESS, JR.JUNE 23, 1986

Congressman Hawkins, Congrcssman Haycs, other members of theCongress, I am Fred Hess, Exedutive Dircctor of thc Chicago Panel onPublic School Finances. I want to thank you for this opportunity tosharc with you our insights into thc problcms of dropouts from thepublic school systcms of this land. I commcnd you for your concernabout this problcm and for your efforts to help providc some solutions.

Last ycar, thc Chicago Pancl released thc most precise andcxhaustivc study of dropouts in Chicago. Wc trackcd over 100,000individual studcnts iu thc graduating classes of 1982, 1983, and 1984.This study, "Dropouts From Thc Chicago Public Schools; was funded bythe Lloyd A. Fry Foundation, and donc cooperatively with the school

system. Nine perccnt of these studcnts transferred out of thc ChicagoPublic School systcm; of thosc who remained, only 57% graduatcd.Forty-three percent (43%) of all entering freshmen dropped out short ofgraduation. When morc than two of cvcry five studcnts in our urbanschool systems do not make it through high school, wc havc acatastrophic problcm. It is a human tragcdy in tcrms of rcduccd lifeopportunitics for these youth.

But it is also a major social problem for our nation. Dropoutsdisproportionately receive welfare and uncmploymcnt transfer payments,and arc significantly more involvcd in thc high cost of crimc. Because

of rcduccd life-time carnings, dropouts contributc significantly lowertaxes to federal, statc, and local governments. Wc calculatcd thelifetime social costs of thc 12,804 dropouts from thc Chicago Class of1982 at over 52.5 billion in transf cr payments, Crime costs, and losttaxes. Furthcrmorc, these dropouts arc adding to thc ranks of thosepcoplc who arc bccoming a permancnt underclass in this country!

But gctting a handlc on thc dropout prohlcm is not easy. Schooldistricts havc not kept records in a way that facilitates suchvnalyses. Thc first problcm is in dctcrmining a uniform definition ofwho is a dropout. Is a young woman who leaves school 10 have a baby a

*de*. C. Amoy a/ 1 Mob. C....* C C.v., PTA 011.1* 3ooey Jouri so 1./.4 Moro to,* .1.. taw. C...111m... , .,

et1 1 V.** 0..ren Ow, Oft* tS F. rh. . 0,1*OMCW, pr*, e

De..1 51. Th.*0. Alfro Jr.. [mow* dew..

1G5

161

dropout? Is a young person who lcavcs to take a job a dropout? Is aperson who cnlists in thc armcd scrviccs a dropout? Is a studcnt whctransfers to *1 bcauty school a dropout? Until this year, nonc of timestudcnts %in; considcrcd a dropout in Chicago, with thc rcsult that onchigh sehoo!, Crane., could claim a l.9% dropout rate, though we foundthat 63% of its cntcring studcnts left without graduating! It is thisdisparity bctwccn ficial rceords And on-site rcality obscrvcd byparcnts and community residents which add to popular dcspair about thepublic saools. For our study, wc defined a dropout as a person who,before graduating, left thc public schools without a valid transfer. Iam happy to announce that thc Chicago 7ublie Schools has rcccntlyrcviscd its official leave codcs to rrflect that dcfinition.

The seconJ problcm in cletermining thc scopc of thc dropout problcmis in th ,. method of determining a figure. Mnst school districts thatrcport tigurcs providc annual statistics whh divide thc numbcr ofstudcnts recorded as dropping out by thc total high school enrollment,usually producing single digit dropout rates. This mcthod has also bccnuscd in your proposed lcgislation, H.R. 3042. A morc realistic picturcis providcd by taking a longitudinal approach, tracking each class as itcntcrs high school to dctcrminc what pereenta6e graduatc and whatperccnt drop out. This produccs a figu . which is rcadily undcrstood byparcnts, community rcsidcnts, and busincss leaders. If 43% drop out,parcnts know thcir kids havc a chancc of graduating which is onlyslightly bcttcr than onc in two, and business pcoplc know that nearlyhalf of the young pcoplc entering thc workforcc in that arca will bclacking thc skills and work habits for which :hey arc looking. Torcally undcrstand thc seopc and tragcdy of the dropout problcm inAmerica, especially urban and rural America, longitudinal measurement isan absolutc requirement.

Your bill requires a national analysis of thc seop. of thc drcpoutproblem. I would urgc ye!, in conducting that analysis, to rcquirc acomprchcnsivc definition of dropouts Nhich cncompasscs thc high schoolycars. Furthcr, I would urgc that you require participating schooldistricts to usc such a standard dcfinition, and that thcir statisticalrcports adopt a longitudinal accounting method. Rcccnt studics havcrcportcd nn thc widc divcrgcncc of definitions and accounting mcthodswhich currcntly exist in school districts acrorz thc country. Forcomparable analysis, you must set the standards for reporting.

Third, I would urgc you to makc distinctions, in your analysis.between thc aggregate national statistics and thc vcry different dropoutphcnomcna in urban, suburban, and rural parts of our country. Most ofthc litcraturc on dropouts has ignored these distinctions, creatingpsychological picturcs of thc typical dropout which are very misleading,especially for urban school systcms. I havc supplied your staff with afurthcr analysis or this problem and thc way it distorts thc dropoutpicture.

I 6 6'

162

In fact, oven within urbt.1 settings, the dropout picture variesmassively. In cmc Chicago high school, 63% of all enter:ng freshmeneventually dr..; pod out; at anothcr. only II% droppcd out. The problemis very diffcrcnt at those two high schools, and fir' cfforts toalkviate thc problcm rcust be quite different at each, and ot thcclemcntary schools which fccd thou. Our study indicates the bestprcdictor of thc dropout ratc at a Chicago high school is the ,nrccnt ofthe rntcring class retwing at lOw normal icvcIs (Staninc Three orbelow). The higher the percent of ent.,ing students reading belownormal, thc hight thc thmpout rate. Onc school rcccivcd 8^* of itsstudcnts at below normal ,cycls whr: anothcr had only 3% without normalscorcs. Thus, thc clemcatary schools arc 2 critical factor inaddrcssing thc dropout problcm. Wc arc currently engaged in a turthersiudy through which wc will be cxaminiu., cicmcntary school carccrsof studcnts whom we now know cventually droppcd out, and compa:ing thcmwith studcnts who graduatcd from high school. Wt ::re looking for keypoints of intcrvcntion in thc cicmcntary ycars to te thc numbcr ofdroptr..ts.

But this does not mean we should ignore the hinh schools. It wascicar f rom our study that svalc high schools du hater t1::n others, evenwhorl they rcccivc students with similar charactcristics -nd similarcicmcntary school prcparation. We ars zurrently analyzing data from ancthnographic study o'.7 cight high schools to discovcr thcnon-quantifiable aspects of schools which explain why some do betterthan others in maint:ining their students through to graduation. Wewill make a copy of this study available to the subcommittee when it isreleased later this summer.

What can be done to reduce the number of students who drop out ofour high schools? The one. thing which has come clear in the past yearis that there is no "one thing that will solve this problem. Puttingmore counselors into the high schools to try to catch students as theyarc about to drop oot may help to keep some kils in scnool, but it doesnot address the underlying educational issues which arc associated withdropping out. These :r odents still will not be reading at levelsadequate for high school work. Purtht: , getting tough on the kids inclemcntary .-,chool is not likcly to bc effectivc cithcr. Making studentsrcpcat a gradc because of inadccrate achievement gains will simply driverp thc dropout rate--60% cf ovcragc cntrants in !..s Class of 1932dropped out!

Instead, we must focus nn efforts to improvc achissmcnt in thcckmcntary gradcs, through incrc:sing timc cn task thrvugh summcrschools. aftcr school programs, tutorials, and rcducing class sizcs; wcmust continuc to work wilh carly childhood cfforts that will mahanccschool rcadincss for pickindcrgartcncro; and wc must also alter highschool curricula to dcal with cntcring frcshmcn who are not p.cparcd toroad at high school lcycls. It will takc :..unc time bcforc improvcmcntsat the elemcntary levc1 will rcduce thc nccd 'or spcc:.i assistancc forill-prcparcd cntering frcshmcn. Thc cvidcncc is not cicar what rc;x of

163

efforts will In most success:id in addressing these problems in anygiven school district. In fact, our studies show that in urban schooldistricts, different efforts will bc required in different parts of thesystem. Therefore, it seems guile wise to encourage districts to trydifferent things. And it seems equally wise to focus efforts ondifferent sizcs and different types of school districts, for they havequite different problems when it conies to the dropout phenomenon.

Thank you for thc oppportunity to share our findings with you. Wehave provided copies of our study, 'Dropouts From thc Chicago PublicSchools," by G. Alfred Hess, Jr. and Diana Lauber, April 1985 (Secondedition, May 1986) to staff of the committee. It is also available fromthc Chicago Panel, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1730, Chicago, IL 60604.

163

164

Mr. HAYES. Thank you very much, Dr.Hess.[Applause.]Mr. HAYES. Dr. Bailey.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONN BAILEY, PRESIDENT, CENTER FORINNER CITY STUDIES

Dr. BAILEY. Thank you.Good morning, Chairman Hawkins, Congressman Hayes, learned

counsel. My name is Donn Bailey, and I am the director of theCenter for Inner City Studies of Northeastern Illinois University. Ialso come today as vice chairman of the Illinois Committee onBlack Concerns in Higher Education and as a member of the co-ordinating committee of Coalition for Schools Open.

I speak in favor of H.R. 3042, a bill that seeks to amend the Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by providing grantsto the local school districts for prevention of dropouts.

As you know from other testimony this morning, the Departmentof Research and Education of the Chicago Board of Education andthe Chicago Panel on Public School Finances collaborated last yearon the study that went a long way toward specifying the scope ofthe dropo at problem in Chicago and in identifying where that prob-lem can best be attacked.

The research project has recommended initially how the dropoutproblem can be approached. However, as Dr. Hess accuratelypoints oat, much more needs to be done to provide a truly effectivedropout reduction strategy. As Fred has stated on a number of oc-casions, the public debate has shifted now from whether we have aproblem and whether it is accurately designed and reported to apublic debate on what can be done about eliminating the problem.

Recent studies on the nature and extent of the dropout problemin Chicago has concluded that the Chicago Public School Systemhas operated a two-tier system that concentrates students who aredropout prone in inner city black and Hispanic schools. I believethe Chicago Panel on Public School Finances' recommendations arevery important, and they should be internalized in future grantsrequests as local agencies begin to prepare their applications forfunds, if this bill is enacted into law.

Briefly, I would just like to share four of those recommendationsthat have been alluded to and then move to my major points thismorning.

First, that the dropout prone child be identified very early in hisor her elementary school experience.

Second, that the dropout reduction efforts specifically focus on el-ementary school children's reading levels.

Third, that the grade retention efforts be viewed as counterpro-ductive. It does not reduce dropout rates.

Fourth, that special attention and resources be given to theschools that Dr. Hess referred to as holding pens that do not do aswell as expected with the students it receives. That is, particularlythe students who lack basic requisite skills.

In the time remaining for my testimony, I would like to sharepart of the curricular philosophy that we at the Center for Inner

169

165

City Studies feel can effectively combat this human tragedy ofmonstrous proportions called high dropout rate among blacks.

Given the educational battlelines for the 21st century, the chal-lenge for black people is to determine whether we, as a people, canmanage to stay on this Earth. It is imperative from the standpointof our future that there be serious inquiry that reconstructs Afri-can history for our children and for our teachers, an African histo-ry that enables our children and their parents to relate easily to acorrect understanding of ancient Egypt and its contributions to hu-mankind.

There must be a curriculum requirement concerning kindergar-ten children through 12th grade. We need to eliminate the trendfor ignoring Africa and disregarding Africa. Although the Egyptirncivilization is included as part of the early world history in mostschools, it is still cursory and quite superficial. More importantly,the fact that Egypt was an African civilization is virtually ignored.

We at the Center for Inner City Studies maintain that suchtreatment leaves all children of all ages with the impression thatAfrica produced no culture which contributes to what is consideralworld civilization. The result is in contradiction to the wisdom ofthe very Greeks who are held up as the forefathers of Westernscholarship and Western civilization.

Plato and Aristotle and others recognized the influence of blackpeople of Egypt called Kemites and how they had very strongimpact on their Greek thinking and in the building of Greek insti-tutions. Many have said that the Roman and Greek civilizationsare a stolen legacy from the African antiquity.

Ignoring Egypt as a black civilization not only leads to the incor-rect understanding of historical foundations of civilization, but itresults in the cultural estrangement and the racial alienation ofchildren of Mrican descent to the whole process of education. Ourchildren, those who dislike school, who disrespect teachers, who areat war with school values and discipline truly see nothing in thecontribution of their most ancient cultural forefathers in the life ofschool.

Through school activities and learning, black life and its impor-tance to all children should come forward bit by bit. If that wasdone, we submit that our children will become more in tune withformal educational processes and may be stimulated by it and,therefore, stay in school. The damage to black youth because of theapparent poverty of the African culture, vis-a-vis world culture, isdevastating and part of a causal pattern that results in lowachievement scores, high dropout rates, hostile behavior, increasedjuvenile delinquency, and an escalating black suicide rata.

Our children are told and shown every &Lk/ that black people donot count. They never did and they never *ill. My colleagues inthe center believe strongly that a reassessment of the Egyptian civ-ilization would reveal a great variety of materials for curriculumredesign from grades kindergarten through 12th, and this -.you'dgreatly enhance a more creative and a more fair inclusion of Eap-ti an antiquity.

This, we submit, would not only turn black kids on to education,but would essentially improve the quality of education for blackchildren and for white children, for that matter.

170

166

This curriculum effort should help destroy the lie of white supe-riority and the lie of black inferiority. My colleagues at the centerhave demonstrated that applied research that teaches teachers andstudents alike to understand and turn the globe right side up andrecognize and Africanize our curriculum will go a long way in get-ting black students turned onto education.

In closing, therefore, instruction from a well-qualified teacherwho respects black people, their children, and black people's histor-ical values to the world will go a long way toward reducing thedropout rate.

Thank you very much for your attention.Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Dr. Bailey.[Applause.]Mr. HAYES. Dr. Riddick.

STATEMENT OF REV. DR. GEORGE RIDDICK, VICE PRESIDENT ATLARGE, OPERATION PUSH

Dr. RIDDICK. Thank you very much, Congressman Hayes andCongressman Hawkins.

I want to apologize for not having a formal text. We will be sub-mitting a formal text at a later time. I simply want to make a fewcomments.

I think enough has been said about the statistics on dropouts, butas we look at the whole question of the impact of dropout rates andfailure to complete school in terms of the economic development ofour people, I think it is evident that we are in serious trouble.

It is obvious to us at Operation PUSH, for example, that we aregoing to need a larger number of local community initiatives andeconomic development. This means a larger number of businessesin our community. This country chartered 636,000 businesses acouple of years ago. Last year, I believe the figure was 743,000 busi-nesses.

This will require a level of sophistication and education that willadapt our people to the question of using the computer at veryhigh level, that will deal with the whole matter of how a businesssurvives during the critical first 5 years of its life, and many otherfactors that represent the difference between success and failure inbusiness.

But this is not only true in business. As we fight for the right tosecure places in a craft union that we deal with th e whole questionof becoming skilled tradespersons, it is evident that we will havewe will need a far larger number of persons in school, working as-siduously and diligently to complete school and prepare themselvesadequately for the job world.

It is of interest to me that a few years ago, the leadership confer-ence on civil rights published a study quoting that the WIN Pro-gram, which took a large number of public aid recipients, primarilyin this instance women, and allowed them to return to school toincrease their job skills, became a program that returned five dol-lars for each $1 invested in it. Unfortunately, this administrationdid not see the worth of that program.

As we look at the fact that upward to $47 billion i lost in oureconomy due to discrimir ationjust at one level, you take it at all

171

7167

levels according to Victor Poreau, it might be as high as a $120 bil-lion, when you consider such things, for example, as the disparitiesrelative to unemployment rates and various other matters likethat.

But just to take a look at what the Anton Bremmer has notedwith reference to our loss, the loss is $47 billion to the black com-munity alone. That is a loss that is significant and that, in manyinstances, is greatly augmented by the fact of the lack of educationand the high rates of dropouts that occur because of that lack.

So, it seems to me that as we begin to look at our future, as webegin to talk about the question of where we are going, the bill of-fered here, House Resolution 3042 is absolutely essential if we areto survive.

I want to just cite one particular thing in terms of our experi-ences at PUSH and then I will close my testimony.

Namely, that we are presently involved in what we call, Con-gressmen, a College-Bound Program. The director of that program,Ms. Ora Saunders, each day perhaps counsels as many as 5 to 10students among the several students who come to her because oftheir problems of being dropouts.

They are seeking to find ways to secure their high school equiva-lency diploma and, thereforecertificates, rather, and, therefore,become eligible to apply for colleg:?.

It has really worked. I mean, it is really tragic in the process ofour program because it would be much better if those students hadremained in school. Obviously, we have to acknowledge tbe factthat many of our schools warehouse our students and do not sig-nificantly work to educate them. It is obvious that dropouts aregoing to be a result of that, but on the other hand, to keep theseyoung people in school, to allow them to complete their educationalprocess, offers a much better promise in terms of what will happento them in the future.

I think this bill is absolLtely a godsend. As a minister in a com-munity that is touched by fairly high dropout rates of the WendellPhillips School and the Du Sable School, schools where many of thechildren of my church and adjacent churches attend schools, etcetera, and th e. obvious pressure, the peer pressure that occurs rel-ative to dropout rates, to say nothing about the economic problems,isbecomes a very real factor for us.

You begin to think of the fact, too, that 63 percent of our mar-ried couples among blacks are couples in homes of multiple earn-ings. We need to consider this particular factor, vis a-vis the ques-tion of keeping young people in school because these families, thesefamilies, even though there is a husband and wife praient, areunder pressure, and, so, it is very understandable how a homeheaded perhaps by a single mother or by a young adult mother willbe under severe pressure also.

So, I want to add my yoke and the voice of our organization insupport of H.R. 3042, and indicate that we will do all we can topublicize and to augment or, rather. to 4enerate additional supportfor this legislation. [Applause.]

Mr. HAYES. Thank you.Ms. Montoya.

172

168

STATEMENT OF RENEE MARIE MONTOYA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,DESIGN FOR CHANGE

Ms. MONTOYA. Thank you.Good afternoon. My name is Renee Montoya. I am the associate

director for Design for Change.I want to express my appreciation to Congressman Hayes for his

invitation to present testimony on behalf of the Design for Changein response to H.R. 3042.

We are all here today to bear sad witness to the consensusamong us that tens of thousands of young people in this countryare every day being permanently and irreparably barred frommeaningful contribution as citizens in this cruntry.

We are also here today to suggest remedies for those youngstersnot yet lost, and to specifically address the provisions of the con-gressional bill which proposes to al!eviate the problem.

This afternoon, I will spend most of my time describing the shiftfrom the traditional way of thinking about the dropout problem.We would be pleased to be a resource to you as you begin to refinethe bill language into specific implementation strategies.

The work of Design for Change focuses primarily on identifyingpractical solutions to urban school problems and pressing for themto be carried out. We have earned national recognition for ourstudies of effective urban school reform projects in cities across thecountry.

Last year, Design for Change released the Bottom Line. A re-search examination of the completion rate of the Chicago publicschools class of 1984. We found the high school completion rate forChicago overall to be about 47 percent. That is approximately 50percent of those who enter high school in the ninth grade fail tocomplete high school within the Chicago Public School System.

For those poor, black or Hispanic, the completion rate plummetsto 35 percent. This overall rate of noncompletion has not changedsubstantially over the past five graduating classes.

Based on our research fmdings about Chicago's high schools, ourextensive knowledge of how the school system operates, and our re-search about reforms that have worked in other cities, we have de-veloped a quality school agenda for Chicago.

While it is not poosible to go into detail about this agenda, twomajor tenets of it form the basis for our three recommendations toyou today. They are: the individual local school is the key unit inthe school s: vihere the process of change either succeeds orfails. And, ti5 lay,..ge urban school systems do not have the capac-ity to reform themselves without a major sustained push from thepublic.

Issue No. 1. The student's problem or the school's problem. Toooften, we look for the source of the problem in the characteristicsof youth who dre.2!. out. They are poor. They are black. They do notspeak English well. They are pregnant. They come from disorga-nized families. They do not have high aspirations.

Blaming the victim gets the school off the hook. We cannot, inmany cases, do much about a kid's background, but we can dosomething about the policies and practices of the schools theseyouths attend.

173

169

Our first recommendation then is that the unit of analysis bechanged to the individual school. Why does not an individualschool have holding power for at risk students? If we really consid-ered this data, we might just come up with a basis for reshapingschool policy and practice.

The most recent dropout studies about which you have heard alot this morning have offered some supportive conclusions. It ap-pears that there is little difference between dropout rates forwhite, black or Hispanic students if they attend the same type ofschool. If one is lucky enough to be among the 6.9 percent attend-ing selective academic schools, your change of dropping out is 16percent. If you are going to a vocational cr nonselective integratedschool, the chances are around 25 percent. A far cu from the rateof 62 percent experienced by nonselective segregated schools.

We have a two-tiered high school system in Chicago. Someschools are designed for the best students drawing the highestachieving students away from inner city neighborhood schools.Others seem to be dumping grounds for the worst prepared stu-dents.

The opportunity we have is not just keeping at risk students inschool, but providing them with educationally worthwhile experi-ences. The public school is obligated to create an environment inwhich youth can experience success and develop aspirations.

What sorts of places are ineffective schools? Typically, the char-acteristics of an ineffective school include the following: a highprincipal turnover rate. Principals who are unaware of their ownschool policies and procedures which may be contributing factors tothe dropout rate.

School staff believe these kinds of students are uneducatable and,finally, the schools give up on truants. Obviosts:cald, these problems

anare school level problems which c be addre by system policydecisions with implementation at the school k.vel.

Issue No. 2. Is more money the answer? The second shift we sug-gest is to resist tacking on more money and add-on programs to ad-dress the dropout problem. There is no question but that these chil-dren need to be identified and helped, but all too often, add-on pro-grams become additional ways to isolate and segregate and blamethe victim.

What is wrong is happening to every child in every classroom ofan ineffective school. Change must occur there. As my colleaguefrequently reminds me, if it is not happening in the classroom, it isnot happening.

Issue No. 3. What makes schools change? As we noted earlier, in-effective schools cannot and will not change themselves. The drop-out problem cannot be viewed in isolation or in a vacuum awayfrom other importatzt actors in each vulnerable student's life. Par-ents, teachers, the business community, community-based organiza-tions and others, all of these people must be substantively involvedin determining and implementing and monitoring successful strate-gies with the schools to address the problem.

There is shared responsibility and, so, there must be shared ac-countability. We commend Congressman Hayes for his leadershipon this pressing national problem and want to express our supportfor his bill.

174

170

We find that the sections concerned with review of curriculumrelevance, activities which will improve student motivation and theschool learning environment, training for school staff and coordi-nated activities for high schools and elementary schools to be thosethat are most conducive to an overall strategy of basic school im-provement.

We urge that grants be given to those education agencies or com-munity-based organizations who can demonstrate pursuant to care-ful review that there will be a systematic, fundamental change inpolicy as well as practice, and real good faith effort at strongparent involvement in those strategies.

We encourage you to be tough in your standards and tough inyour review of performance. We support the effort in the bill toarrive at a standard definition of school dropout and the develop-ment of a model dropout information collection and reportingsystem. Too often, we do not even agree on what a dropout is orhow many of them there are.

Such a national system, however, should be used to providestandards and directions for local education agencies.

Finally, we share Congressman Hayes' deep concern that allpeople secure decent employment at a living wage. Though beyondthe scope of this bill, we support his efforts to address the problemsof low wages, lack of jobs, a differential hiring and promotionpolicy, and all those social and economic policies that will ensurethat staying in school for another two years to graduate is reallyworth it, that there is an opportunity for employment and earningsthat will respect our future and help our young people have decentfutures and fulfilling lives.

Thank you.Mr. HAYES. Thank you. [Applause.]Thank you very much to each of you witnesses.Dr. Riddick, if you could reduce to writing at least part of your

testimony or all----Dr. RIDDICK. We will get it into you.Mr. HAYES [continuing]. Some of those things that you brought

out, I think, in part, can be made a part of the record of thi com-mittee.

We are at the point now of concluding this hearing. It seems tome that all of the witnesses have, through testimony, concluded asI have and members ofother members of the committee on ele-mentary and secondary education, our subcommittee, that withouta proper education, a person is all but destined to be on the lowerend of the totem pole of life.

The ability to earn a decent wage, the ability to secure decentliving quarters, the ability to function effectively in an Americansociety, or to simply enjoy the rewards of American life, all of thosedepend on obtaining an education.

It is time that we woke up to the fact that those students whodrop out of school not only do a disservice to themselves, but alsoto the rest of society as well. According to our research estimate,dropouts cost our Nation some $71 billion in lost tax revenue, $3billion for welfare and unemployment, and $3 billion for crime,which all totals $77 billion a year.

1,7 5

171

H.R. 3042, as you said, is not an end to our Nation's dropoutproblem. I believe, though, and most of you have indicated that youagree. It would go a long way toward providing some very neces-sary programs and, hopefully, will be able to convince some of mycolleagues in tomorrow's markup that this is a problem that wecan no longer overlook.

Solutions to which our school systems can take advantage of inaddressing the dropout problem is a part of H.R. 3042.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to personally commend youand your entire staff for bringing the subcommittee to Chicago. Iam certain the information our invited witnesses presented today,will more than justify this bill and your visit.

Thank you very much. [Applause.]This concludes the meeting of the committee.[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.][Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

172

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROISS COLLINS, 7 OISTRICT ILLINOIS

BEFORE THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE'S ON ELEMENTARY,

SECONDARY AND VOCATIONAL EOUCATION.

10:00 A.M. MONOAY, JUNE 23, 1986 AT THE CHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE

BUILDING, 4510 S. MICHIGAN.

177

173

ITS TIME TO SAVE AMERICA'S MINOS

MR. CHAIRMAN, THE BILL THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING

TODAY, THE DROPOUT PREVENTION AND REENTRY ACT, IS

OF URGENT IMPORTANCE. EDUCATION REPRESENTS THE

FUTURE OF AMERICA. TODAY'S STUDENTS WILL BE

TOMORROW'S LEADERS. THIS FUTURE IS THREATEN BY AN

:NEREASING DROPOUT RATE AMONG OUR STUDENTS; A

SITUATION WHICH IS RAPIDLY GETTING OUT OF HAND.

IT IS A CRISC4 THAT COULD SAP THE MENTAL STRENGTH

OF AMERICA.

7 S

174

2

THE PHENOMENON INFECTS ALL OF THE NATION'S

SCHOOLS. BUT IT is PARTICULARLY RAMPANT WITHIN

IMPOVERISHEO COMMUNITIES. THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY

REPORTED RECENTLY THAT OU SABLE HIGH SCHOOL HERE

IN CHICAGO HAS A OROPOUT RATE OF FIFTY-ONE

PERCENT. FIFTY-ONE PERCENTM THAT FIGURE IS

allsotirmY Amaidua! WHAT HAPPENS TO THESE

DROPOUTS? ARE THEY SIMPLY MOVING INTO JOBS THAT

OD NOT REoiLltr!S A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE?

17 a

175

3

UNFORTUNATELY NO. FOR THE VAST MAJORITY Oc THESE

INDIVIDUALS THE FUTURE WILL BRING ONLY POVERTY.

MISERY. AND DESTITUTION. ThEY WILL BECOME

DEPENDENT ON GOVERNWNT SUBSIDIES AND WILL NEVER

TAKE THEIR PROPER PLACE AS TAX PAYING CITIZENS.

IN THE PAST. AN INDIVIDUAL WHD DID NOT HAVE AN

EDUCATION COULD ALWAYS FIND PHYSICAL:WORK. BUT

TODAY MORE AND MORE JOBS REQUIRE AN EDUCATED MIND.

THE DROPOUTS OF TODAY WILL BE HELPLESS IN

TOMORROW'S TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD.

1 0

176

4

THE rUTURE DEPENDENCE OF THESE DROPOUTS ON

THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR SUPPORT IS BAD ENOUGH.

THERE IS, HOWEVER, AN EVEN GRAVER EFFECT. AMERICA

IS LOSING THE BRAIN POWER CF THESE PEOPLE. AS

EDUCATED CITIZENS, THEIR MINDS WOULD BECOME A

RESO,JRCE FOR THE NATION. THEY WOULD TAKE THEIR

PLACE AS PHYSICISTS, DOCTORS, AND LAWYERS. SOME

WOMAN BECOME AIRLINE PILOTS. OTHERS MIGHT OPEN

SMALL BUSINESSES. WHATEVER THEIR POSITIONS, THEY

181

177

5

WOULD ADD THEIR MENTAL POWER, THEIR INTELLIGENCE,

AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE TD THE COmMON POOL THAT iS

AMERICA. THE DROPOUT CR:SIS IS STEALING nlis

RESOURCE FROM THE NATION. OUR SOCIETY IS LOSING

BECAUsE yOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT RECEIVING THE PROPER

COUNSELLING AND HELP NEEDED TO ENABLE TEEM TO STAY

IN SCHOOL.

THE ISSUE oF EDUCATION HAS BEEN OF GREAT

impORTANCE TO ME THROUGHOUT MY CPREER. EDUCATION

182

178

6

is THE VEHICLE BY WHICH THOSE IN POVERTY CAN BREAK

THE OIAINS THAT BIND THEM AND TAKE THEIR RIGHTFUL

PLACE IN SOCIETY, THAT IS WHY I JOINED WITH MY

COLLEAGUES LONG AGO TO CREATE THE DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION ANO TO ESTABLISH A COORDINATED NATIONAL

POLICY ON EDUCATION, RECENTLY. I HANIE COSPONSOREO

LEGISLATION EXTENDING EOUCATIONAL BENEFITS TO THE

DISADVANTAGED AND THE HANDICAPPED. GRANTING (HEM

EVEN GREATER OPPORTUNITIES. IT IS FRUSTRATING

4 33

179

7

ENOUGH TO SEE THESE EFFORTS THREATENED BY MEASURES

SUCH AS THE GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS ACT. A MfSGUIUED

LAW THAT COULD DRASTICALLY REDUCE EDUCATIONAL

BENEFITS. EVEN PADRE OISHEARTENING IS THE DROPOUT

RATE. IF PROGRAMS ARE NOT INSTITUTED SOON TO

REVERSE THIS TREND. ALL OUR EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF

EOUCATION WILL HAVE BEEN 1U VAIN.

H.R. 3042 IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT OIRECTION.

IT AUTHORIZES $50 MILLION FOR A CROSS-SECTION OP

SCHOOL OISTRICTS TO UNDERTAKE NEW APPROACHES 70

180

8

DRoPoUT PREVENTION AND METHODS FOR ASSISTING

DROPOUTS DESIRING TO REENTER SCHOOL. Tills WILL

ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CREATIVE SOLUTIONS To

THE PROBLEM. THE BILL WILL ESTABLISH A NATIONAL

SCHOOL DROPOUT STUDY, TO DETERM/NE THE NATURE AND

EXTENT OF THE CRISIS AND TO OUTLINE THE BEST

MEASURES TO ADDRESS IT. THE GRANT-RAKiNG PART OF

H.R. 3042 wILL ENA3LE THOSE SCHOOLS MOST AFFLICTED

8 5

181

9

TO CONCENTRATE ON PREVEIJION. FINALLY, THE BILL

WILL PROVIDE THE FOONDATWN OE EFFECTIVE DROPOUT

PREVENTION STRATEGIES FC( OUR NATION'S SCHOOLS.

THIS IS AN WORTANT HEARING TODAY. THE

WITNESSES TESTIFYING HERE WILL 00 THEIR BEST TO

ENLIGHTEN AND INFORM U CONCERNING THE DROPOUT

CRISIS. I URGC MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN WITH ME IN

APPLYING THE EXPERT/SE OIc THESE WITNESSES. AS WE

REVIEW H,P. 3042. THE TINE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM

Is NON. LET'S KEEP OUR CH.LOREN IN THE CLASSROOM

AND GET T.;E: DROPOuTs BACK IN SCHOOL. THE FUTURE

OF MWRICA DEPMS oN uS.

186

182

PRESENTATION OF TESTIMONY TO

Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education

U.S. House of Representatives

H.R. 3042

Salvatore G. Rotella, Chancellor

City Colleges of Chicago

30 East Lake Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

June 23, 1986

1S7

183

Mr. Chairman and members of the U.S. House of RepresentativesCommittee on Education and Labor, I appreciate this opportunity tooffer a community college perspective of the painfully high dropoutrate among our secondary school students. My comments willspecifically focus on the general concept and merits of the DropoutPrevestion and Re-entry Act of 1986 (HR 3042).

It is truly amazing that, throughout the years, educators continuallydissect the American school system and yet say so little about theproblem of drop-outs. As John Goodlad once stated, "The quality of aneducational institution must be judged on its holding power, not justan assessment of its graduates."

Retention of studentsor holding power--at the high school level isan issue familiar to educators in every city, town and village in thiscountry. The shadow of escalating drop-out rates, however casts amore ominous darkness on minority students residing in large urbanareas. Iv. Chicago, alone, the dropout rate for Hispanics is 472;Blacks, 45%; Whites 35%. This is compared to an average nationaldropout rxte of 29%. The social costs attached to such a largepopulation of undereducated teens with only time on their hands areoverwhelming and well documented. Furthermore, both the individualand society shoulder the burden of these costs through, for example:

1) increase in crimeleading to higher costs of court andincarceration;

2) lower labor productivity;

3) reduced national income;

4) foregone tax revenues;

5) lessened social mobility;

6) poor health;

7) and, most unfortunate, a one-way ticket to permanent residencein our ever-growing underclass.

The problem is clearly defined -- and it is national in scope.Piecemeal solutions sponsored by individual state and localgovernmentsthough marked with good intentionswill not reach theroot of the problem. Federal leadership ie necessary if we decide totake the drop-out dilemma seriously and implement viable programs tohelp develop studehts into productive citizens.

-1-

184

In this regard, the components of HR 3042 are most meritorious anddeserving of the full support and endorsement of all members ofCongress.

First, there is a widespread concern among those involved in highschool retention programs over the lack of comprehensive data ondropouts. National surveys and local school assessments providedivergent figures on the number of dropouts. Comparative analysiaamong school districts is virtually impossible mainly because there isno clear definition of what constitutes a 'dropout". Districts usedifferent atandards, for example, to determine when students have leftone school and not enrolled in another. Some districts count studentswho leave school due to pregnancy while others do not include pregnantstudents. The chronic truant is considered a dropout in somedistricts and not in others. These discrepancies are endless andcontribute to the dearth of relevant data on dropouts.

HR 3042 attempts to ameliorate this situation by directing theSecretary of Education to conduct a national study which will definethe nature and extent of the nation's dropout problem. This is aworthwhile venture that should enable better planning and informationsharing by local districts. Without central data, solutious arearbitrary and capricious.

Second, the dropout dilemma is not monolithic. Some students arelabeled dropouts at the age of thirteen, while :4hers wait until theirsenior year to leave high school. Some students leave because of poorgrades and the inability to get along with teachers and classmates,others leave to seek employment, while still others leave because ofgang involvement or intimidation. Many female students drop outbecause they are pregnant. Some students seek re-entry into anacademic program soon after they drop out, others wait until they areadults before attempting to achieve a high school diploma or itsequivalent.

Such diversity among the dropout population clearly suggests that avariety of programs from a variety of cources should be made availableto all those interested in returning to the classroom. There is adefinite role for the local school district, neighborhoodorganizations and community college to play in creating opportunitieafor academic and professional advancement for students who prematurelyleave high school.

The preeminent example of community college involvement in thealternative high school movement is Coe LaGuardia Middle College.Located in New York City, Middle College is jointly administered byLaGuardia Community College and the New York City Board of Education.In operation since 1972, this school for students at risk of droppingout has an 84.5 percent average daily attendance rate and 85 percentof its graduates are accepted into college. The attrition rate is amere 14.5 percent, compared to the overall New York City average of 46percent.

-2-

1

185

Using LaGuardia as a model, the City Colleges of Chicago recentlychristened its own alternative high school program. The program,located at two college campuses, are fullday high schools whichemphasize academic classes and career education. The targetpopulation are students, sixteen and older, who have not completedhigh school. Funding vas made available by the state of Illinoisthrough the Truauts' Alternative and Optional Education program whichwas part of Illinois' educational reform package.

Small class size allows formore personal interaction betseen student

and teacher, as well as among classmates, than was possible in thetraditional high school environment. Because the high school islocated within a community college, college students serve as rolemodels for the alternative high Lchool participants. Exposure to theopportunities available to college students may encourage students tonot only complete their high school degree, but also pursue a collegediploma.

The City Colleges of Chicago also serves as fiscal agent for severalcommunitybased alternative high school programs. These communityagencies were not alloyed to directly request state funds under theTruants' Alternative and Optional Education program and requested thehelp of the City Colleges of Chicago to serve their atrisk youth.

The community college movement has made a distinct turn from singlepurpose institutions to colleges with a range of purposes and programsthat serve the needs of the community. Our mission and goal ofpromoting equity and excellence in education to all citizensinterested in expanekng their opportunities is particularly relevantto assisting the many high school dropouts seeking a renewed lease onlife. Thus, I suggest that the provisions of HR 3042 includecommunity colleges in the demonstration projects for high schooldropouts.

In conclusion, dropout programs should be viewed as involtments thathave the potential of producing large divideLis to society and theindividual. Funds allocated for successful ci'..;:ation programs fordropouts will save taxpayers money in zhe long run through, mostsignificantly, decreaaed expenditures on welfare and crime. Mostimportant, however, is the positive effect the granting of a highschool diploma will have on a student who has suffered the indignitiesof being undereducated and unemployable. In the words of a recentdropout who is now attending class at the City Colleges of Chicago'salternative high school, "This school is my second chance to succeedin life.'

I urge the United StatesCongress to quickly pass HR 3042 in order to

give more struggling students a second chance.

186

e4ceeea

CITIZENS SCHOOLS COMMITTEE35 &Wabash ChicapO. 50503 Phone (3IZ 725-45Th

ADAMITELO 4 46'49June 23, 1986

Arrrt econecr STATEFENT OF CITIZENS SCHOOLS COMMITTEE TO CONGRESSIOMAL

Vincent W. Ericksco FEARING HELD BY CONGRESSMAN CHARLES HAYES AT TFE CHICAGOURBAN LEAGLE

First Vice PresidentWalterIL Coital

Second Vice PreeidomtUr. flow Kir le Brain

Third Vice PresidentCharle_s_ERolars_

QSee'rttaryt11,_!tc E. Senochalle

Treasurernr. Nathaniel Willis

Mmcton

CaseyCarolyn CordesHal CrandallMirrel IkaateaRaphael G. GualardoIhyllis KeithKaren A. Kw:Istria?Robert grinsCarol leuteDr. Siegfried MuellerSalmi PensDr. Walter E. PilditchBeverly Ann Richardeon" h Schneirov

mean Hiles ShermanPubertal TakataGail Weisberg

Advitors

Warren BaconPresident, Chicago United

Dr. Michael Bake Uskarthvestern University

Honorable Arthur BomanIllinois Senate

lionorable Woods BonenIll. House of Representatives

Fred FeltenIllinois Bell

Dr. RobenJ.IlavighanstProftssorBrerintsUniversity of Chicago

Reverend ThomasJackson,./r.PastPresident,CW 1. Cumulative records to facilitate early identification

A 1986 study by the Chicago Panel on Publim School Finances

found the drop out rate citywide in the Chicago public schools to

be 43% fOr the class of 1982. Current estimates as reported in

the media put it as high as 50%.

The problem is not new. In the early years of this century

young people could leave school for work at 14, but were

required to attend continuation school until the age

of 16. Dropping out was common and did not carry the

stigma of today's drop out, but there were jobs. In

today's society, with changing technology and high unem-

ployment, there are few jobs available for drop outs

which do not require a high school diploma or its

equivalent.

In 1950 the Department of Instruction and Guidance

of the Chicago public schools issued an outline for the

discussion of "Holding Power - the Number One Problem

of Our Nations Schools". A drop out was defined as an

irdividual who has left school before graduation from

high school.

Also in 1950, n "Work Conference on Life Adjust_

ment" held in Chicago recommended the following:

tbnoraSle David D. OrrAldenson, 49th Ward

Dr. Kenneth B. StithP--sident, Chicago

an:natal Seninary

of potentiel drop outs;

2. Extension of counseling into elementary schools;

3. OdirecalfV)Ioqy the curriculum;

Per., Ill3 womi la Or I p111.000..4. Ow, roe Mem.

187

2.

A. Humaniziog instruction;

5. Enlisting mote students in extra curricular activities;6. Offering supervised work experieoce;

7. Interesting the teaching staff;

8. Establishing evening schools for adults;

9. Study and reduce "sgueeze-oue(now referred to as "push-out";

10.Establish unifirm accounting for drop outs:

11.Intensify supervislon;

12.Enlist community aid; and

13.Provide home counselors.

/n 1959, a study by the Chicago Federation of Settlements and

Neighborhood Centers expressed the deep concern of the Federation

for the drop out problem, stating that 50% of youngsters er',.ering

Chicago high schools drop out before graduation. The Federation's

recommendations included flexibility of programs, preparation for the

Job market, work-study programs, in-service training for teachers,

especially in guidance, cooperation betwaen schools and social agenciEs,

and the employment of social workers for individual counseling service.

The Chicago Board of Education published a High School Droo Out

Report for the 1966-67 to 1973-74 school years. The city wide drop

out rate for the 1973-74 year MEIS cited at 9.8%. The current rate

cited hy the Chicago Public Schools is about 8%.

In July 1974 a Research Report entitled "Students Removed from

School Attendance Rolls" in Chicago and Suburban Co)k County was pub-

lished by the Educational Service Region of Cook County, Richard J.

,artwick, Superintendent. It concluded that "Schools must provide

alternative options for those students who are not oerved by the

traditional school program".

188

3.

The study stated that:

1. In Cook County suburban high schools 3.36% and in Chicago 14.7%

were off school rolls for various reasons.

2. A major probler is funding - to provide good teachers, expanded

and renovated facilties and materials and good counseling, and for

developing career education programs which should be individualized

and more relevant to the real world of wo:.

3. Identified as part of the problem were suspensions and expulsions

as well as more subtle ways of encouraging young people to leave

school.

In 1982, Citizens Schools Committee's School Accountability

Study, "Better Schools for All Chicago", recommended early identifi-

cation, diagnosis and remediation be provided for students with mathe-

matics, reading or attendance problems, that a special educational

plan be developed for older below-level students who are not fulfilling

requirements for graduation, counseling on a continuing basis as soon

as it is indicated that a student is not fulfilling those requtrements,

and inclusion of students and their parents in the setting of goals

and their attainment.

The above are from publications in the Citizens Schools files.

The list of recommendations from the 1950 conference 36 years ago

are surprisingly similar to today's proposed remedies. The problem

has been well identified over the years, solutions recommended, but

obviously little progress made.

Citizens Schools Committee, as a member of the Chicago Panel

on Public School finances,endorses tbetrecommendationlof the Panel's

Study of Drop outs from the Chicago Public Schools including:

1. A curriculum more relevant to the needs of students who are

potential drop outs;

2. An intensive effort to help the elementary schools better prepare

189

4.

students for high school;

3. Special attention to high schools rEceiving proportionately higher

numbers of under-achieving students and

A. Changes in the management of student information by the Chicago

Board of Education in tracking the progress of students in the

system from entry to graduation.

If dollars are the deterrent to the solutfons, then it is time

to Consider the alternatives of increased welfare and crime rates and

their costs compared to the nost of providing the programs and

services. It is time to set priotities. It is time to act.